Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
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
Dervish,
you make an extremely valid point with regards the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). I have been using this since its introduction to obtain many documents from the MoD. The chap I deal with is very helpful, so I aim to continue to submit requests as and when my enquiring mind takes me.
If there's anyone out there who has any in-depth knowledge of the Chinook HC2 introduction and could suggest documents to go for (either by open post or PM to me), I'd be more than happy to follow the suggestions up. The request, therefore, comes from me - a frequent user of the aforementioned legislation.
I hope this offer helps those who may like to help, but feel a little uncomfortable in doing so.
We're coming up to the twelfth anniversary of the accident and its just over one year ago since my dear friend, John Cook joined Rick and Jon at the great bar in the sky. All are still missed.
As always, updates as and when.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
you make an extremely valid point with regards the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). I have been using this since its introduction to obtain many documents from the MoD. The chap I deal with is very helpful, so I aim to continue to submit requests as and when my enquiring mind takes me.
If there's anyone out there who has any in-depth knowledge of the Chinook HC2 introduction and could suggest documents to go for (either by open post or PM to me), I'd be more than happy to follow the suggestions up. The request, therefore, comes from me - a frequent user of the aforementioned legislation.
I hope this offer helps those who may like to help, but feel a little uncomfortable in doing so.
We're coming up to the twelfth anniversary of the accident and its just over one year ago since my dear friend, John Cook joined Rick and Jon at the great bar in the sky. All are still missed.
As always, updates as and when.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Eagle,
welcome. Best to start with www.chinook-justice.org
Then, if you've nothing better to do for a year or so, have a read of this thread from the beginning!
Good luck!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome. Best to start with www.chinook-justice.org
Then, if you've nothing better to do for a year or so, have a read of this thread from the beginning!
Good luck!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
A little while ago you asked me to name the two Officers of Air Rank who opposed the MOD decisions on this case. I declined but said I would seek the approval of one of the Officers at a later date to publish their name.
I the meantime if you examine the petition in the link above you will see it is signed not only Air Cdre John Blakeley but also by Air Cdre Derek Hine who as IFS wrote the regulation that"only in the event of no doubt whatsoever can deceased aircrew be found guilty of negligene."
A little while ago you asked me to name the two Officers of Air Rank who opposed the MOD decisions on this case. I declined but said I would seek the approval of one of the Officers at a later date to publish their name.
I the meantime if you examine the petition in the link above you will see it is signed not only Air Cdre John Blakeley but also by Air Cdre Derek Hine who as IFS wrote the regulation that"only in the event of no doubt whatsoever can deceased aircrew be found guilty of negligene."
[LEFT]
Hi Brain.
Sorry I have been away from this for a while.
I have today sent another e-mail to my somewhat quiet MP, the Rt Hon Jane Kennedy MP. I believe she is now longer a member of the Governmet. She should have no problem in supporting EDM 651 & 1111 as she is not bound by the conventions of office, in that Junior Ministers do not attach themselves to controversial subjects, especially those that the Goverment do not wish to look at again, or will potentially cause a storm of trouble.
I have also reminded her as an ex NI Security Minister, she has far more knowledge than most of the idiots around her of the capabilities of the crews who serve in NI
I look forward to her reply, but I will not hold my breath. I may, as you have suggested go and take afternoon tea with her if she feels unable to reply, to my polite request.
Cheers
Air Pig
Hi Brain.
Sorry I have been away from this for a while.
I have today sent another e-mail to my somewhat quiet MP, the Rt Hon Jane Kennedy MP. I believe she is now longer a member of the Governmet. She should have no problem in supporting EDM 651 & 1111 as she is not bound by the conventions of office, in that Junior Ministers do not attach themselves to controversial subjects, especially those that the Goverment do not wish to look at again, or will potentially cause a storm of trouble.
I have also reminded her as an ex NI Security Minister, she has far more knowledge than most of the idiots around her of the capabilities of the crews who serve in NI
I look forward to her reply, but I will not hold my breath. I may, as you have suggested go and take afternoon tea with her if she feels unable to reply, to my polite request.
Cheers
Air Pig
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
Air Pig,
no need to apologise (although accepted in the spirit it was offered).
I agree that you shouldn't hold your breath, as it may be for some time!
A good trick to use, if you choose to go to a surgery and meet with her (or any MP, for that matter) is to write to her saying that you intend to see her at her surgery on [date]. During the meeting you intend to discuss the following: [subject].
Go along the lines of "I should be grateful if you wouold be in possession to the points I have raised in my letter". By doing this you keep them firmly on the back foot. If you go into the surgery cold, she can easily look sympathetic and say that she will get back to you. She will, but it will be nothing more than pacifying you during your visit.
If she has the questions prior to your meeting she will have to work the answers out prior to the surgery. Plus, it's much more difficult to fob you off when you're sitting right in front of them.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
As always, very many thanks for your continued support.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
no need to apologise (although accepted in the spirit it was offered).
I agree that you shouldn't hold your breath, as it may be for some time!
A good trick to use, if you choose to go to a surgery and meet with her (or any MP, for that matter) is to write to her saying that you intend to see her at her surgery on [date]. During the meeting you intend to discuss the following: [subject].
Go along the lines of "I should be grateful if you wouold be in possession to the points I have raised in my letter". By doing this you keep them firmly on the back foot. If you go into the surgery cold, she can easily look sympathetic and say that she will get back to you. She will, but it will be nothing more than pacifying you during your visit.
If she has the questions prior to your meeting she will have to work the answers out prior to the surgery. Plus, it's much more difficult to fob you off when you're sitting right in front of them.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
As always, very many thanks for your continued support.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
That nice Mr Ingram
Has finally replied to my question (after a mere 10 weeks) put to him through my MP, Geoffrey Clifton Brown. Well, actually that’s not quite true. He’s replied to a different question - something to do with which frightfully important people they consulted before changing their minds about whether or not an injustice had been done.
What I had asked was “what was the further evidence, presented to him in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. On that subject, Mr I is curiously silent. In his covering letter, my MP says he appreciates that the letter will be a disappointment, but, strangely, he apparently fails to notice that my question has not been answered.
It’s good to see that ‘Yes Minister’ is alive and well and still living in Whitehall.
You can see this model of obfuscatory verbiage at
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...amletbuck1.jpg
So, ho hum, I suppose I shall have to write directly to the wee gnome, sorry the Right Honourable Gentleman, and invite him, once again, to answer the question.
Watch this space.....
airsound
Oh, btw, I understand that paragraphs 2 and 3 of Mr I's letter appear, word for word, in replies received by other people. And people say the Government's not very good at IT.......
What I had asked was “what was the further evidence, presented to him in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. On that subject, Mr I is curiously silent. In his covering letter, my MP says he appreciates that the letter will be a disappointment, but, strangely, he apparently fails to notice that my question has not been answered.
It’s good to see that ‘Yes Minister’ is alive and well and still living in Whitehall.
You can see this model of obfuscatory verbiage at
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...amletbuck1.jpg
So, ho hum, I suppose I shall have to write directly to the wee gnome, sorry the Right Honourable Gentleman, and invite him, once again, to answer the question.
Watch this space.....
airsound
Oh, btw, I understand that paragraphs 2 and 3 of Mr I's letter appear, word for word, in replies received by other people. And people say the Government's not very good at IT.......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks
I'm an ex Loganair pilot and I know the area well. I know that there is a remote possibilty that they didn't actually fu@kup, buit let's face it....they probably did.
If I had, you guys would have been saying sweet FA about it, wouldn't you?
It's about time you 'smelt the cofee'.
Pilots 'r human
I'm an ex Loganair pilot and I know the area well. I know that there is a remote possibilty that they didn't actually fu@kup, buit let's face it....they probably did.
If I had, you guys would have been saying sweet FA about it, wouldn't you?
It's about time you 'smelt the cofee'.
Pilots 'r human
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buit let's face it....they probably did
If I had, you guys would have been saying sweet FA about it, wouldn't you?
actually fu@kup
This is the action being denied the crew of Z576 and their families.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That post was a bit harsh.
What I should have said was... As they were seen very near the sea, but hit the Mull at a reasonable height, they were plainly doing a bit of a pull up, no doubt as they had just lost the horizon after flying into a fog bank.
Seems to me exactly like the classic VFR into IMC accident that has claimed many a GA pilot.
The a/c must have been servicable to do the climb. No doubt if they'd pulled up a bit harder or started a bit earlier or maybe been flying a bit higher they'd have sailed over the hill with???feet under the wheels and **** all would have been said. As it was....well it's very sad.
OK there remains a teensy possibility that it was hit by the Aurora half a second before the crew CFIT'd it into the hill. Or the FADEC's done it a double shutdown right before it hit the heather but if that's what makes the crew 'not guilty' don't be surprised if not everyone goes along with it.
Face the facts. (And lets hope we never do anything similar ourselves)
What I should have said was... As they were seen very near the sea, but hit the Mull at a reasonable height, they were plainly doing a bit of a pull up, no doubt as they had just lost the horizon after flying into a fog bank.
Seems to me exactly like the classic VFR into IMC accident that has claimed many a GA pilot.
The a/c must have been servicable to do the climb. No doubt if they'd pulled up a bit harder or started a bit earlier or maybe been flying a bit higher they'd have sailed over the hill with???feet under the wheels and **** all would have been said. As it was....well it's very sad.
OK there remains a teensy possibility that it was hit by the Aurora half a second before the crew CFIT'd it into the hill. Or the FADEC's done it a double shutdown right before it hit the heather but if that's what makes the crew 'not guilty' don't be surprised if not everyone goes along with it.
Face the facts. (And lets hope we never do anything similar ourselves)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade
My goodness, I think you have a point. How could those of us that have been involved every single day for the last 12 years possibly have overlooked such an obvious scenario!
It's not even as though we don't have intimate knowledge of the entire subject. Or totally relevant experience of this exact type of rotary aircraft, it's introduction into service, it's failings, the operation, the crew, or the area, the subsequent investigations, the BoI, and inquiries.
How could we have made such a basic mistake, as not to consult some "ex Loganair pilot and I know the area well" Pprunner, and ask them what the real reason for the accident was?
If only I had smelled the coffee earlier!
It seems almost irrelevant now, since you've solved it all for us, but how much factual information do you actually know of this accident?
My goodness, I think you have a point. How could those of us that have been involved every single day for the last 12 years possibly have overlooked such an obvious scenario!
It's not even as though we don't have intimate knowledge of the entire subject. Or totally relevant experience of this exact type of rotary aircraft, it's introduction into service, it's failings, the operation, the crew, or the area, the subsequent investigations, the BoI, and inquiries.
How could we have made such a basic mistake, as not to consult some "ex Loganair pilot and I know the area well" Pprunner, and ask them what the real reason for the accident was?
If only I had smelled the coffee earlier!
It seems almost irrelevant now, since you've solved it all for us, but how much factual information do you actually know of this accident?
Brain Fade
“The a/c must have been serviceable to do the climb”.
I’m afraid this statement serves only to perpetuate the myth, so pompously decreed by the MoD, that just because an aircraft can take off/fly/manoeuvre it is “serviceable”.
While there are occasions that such a condition may constitute fitness for purpose – and, while not a pilot, a rotors turning ground run during trials springs to mind – I cannot imagine for one minute an operational scenario such as that tasked to ZD576 where, for example, a defect in the navigation system (fully acknowledged by the MoD) could be interpreted as “serviceable”. I think I’d want to know for sure that I was where I thought I was, and wouldn’t be happy if I knew there were design defects that may compromise this. However, I’m willing to be proved wrong. And yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion. As ever, I do not claim this as the cause - I just cite it as an example - but it raises reasonable doubt.
Best wishes
“The a/c must have been serviceable to do the climb”.
I’m afraid this statement serves only to perpetuate the myth, so pompously decreed by the MoD, that just because an aircraft can take off/fly/manoeuvre it is “serviceable”.
While there are occasions that such a condition may constitute fitness for purpose – and, while not a pilot, a rotors turning ground run during trials springs to mind – I cannot imagine for one minute an operational scenario such as that tasked to ZD576 where, for example, a defect in the navigation system (fully acknowledged by the MoD) could be interpreted as “serviceable”. I think I’d want to know for sure that I was where I thought I was, and wouldn’t be happy if I knew there were design defects that may compromise this. However, I’m willing to be proved wrong. And yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion. As ever, I do not claim this as the cause - I just cite it as an example - but it raises reasonable doubt.
Best wishes
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade
Indeed you are.
Just as we are entitled to highlight the fact that your 'opinion' resides in that cosy world that is; ignorance of any particular knowledge of the case.
If you would care to do a little research, I and I'm sure many others, would be happy to debate the facts.
Indeed you are.
Just as we are entitled to highlight the fact that your 'opinion' resides in that cosy world that is; ignorance of any particular knowledge of the case.
If you would care to do a little research, I and I'm sure many others, would be happy to debate the facts.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem
Let me explain myself. There's 110+ pages here on how these pilots have had a raw deal by being convicted of 'gross negligence'.
I agree that they MAY have been run down by a passing Aurora or some other unknown could have happened to them.
I'd be happy to bet next months wages at poor odds though that it was a plain old CFIT. As done by many a well intentioned pilot over the years.
I say they were negligent. The 'gross negligence' bit is legalese and I wouldn't like to judge it.
If you ask me, and this is the real point, It was the folk in the back who got the raw deal here. not the pilots. And I don't see 110 pages of hand wringing about them.
Let me explain myself. There's 110+ pages here on how these pilots have had a raw deal by being convicted of 'gross negligence'.
I agree that they MAY have been run down by a passing Aurora or some other unknown could have happened to them.
I'd be happy to bet next months wages at poor odds though that it was a plain old CFIT. As done by many a well intentioned pilot over the years.
I say they were negligent. The 'gross negligence' bit is legalese and I wouldn't like to judge it.
If you ask me, and this is the real point, It was the folk in the back who got the raw deal here. not the pilots. And I don't see 110 pages of hand wringing about them.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain fade
Here is an opportunity to contribute positively to this debate:
With your local knowledge as a pilot you could describe the conditions you get when a prevailing wind meets a headland producing that typical localized, ground hugging mist right on the landmass – and comment on just how hard it is to judge the distance off that landmass in those conditions.
I have been a passenger in Trislanders in that region on several occasions and so think that a pilot like yourself would have seen such conditions often.
Many pilots who visit this web site would not have the benefit of such local knowledge and so would be interested in a pilot’s view of the phenomenon.
,
That said, I recommend that you familiarise yourself with this thread as to the weather conditions on the day and the intended route – basically, it was clear across the sea right up to the shoreline and they were intending to turn (close in) up the coast remaining at low level.
I think that you would then find that your comment
<< … as they had just lost the horizon after flying into a fog bank>>
is rather ill considered:
there was no horizon for them ahead for some considerable time as the mist on the Mull merged with the low cloud base;
if there had been a fog bank out to sea at any appreciable distance from the shore, then there would not have been a problem as their action would have avoided the landfall – the first mist that they could have encountered was right on the Mull.
Here is an opportunity to contribute positively to this debate:
With your local knowledge as a pilot you could describe the conditions you get when a prevailing wind meets a headland producing that typical localized, ground hugging mist right on the landmass – and comment on just how hard it is to judge the distance off that landmass in those conditions.
I have been a passenger in Trislanders in that region on several occasions and so think that a pilot like yourself would have seen such conditions often.
Many pilots who visit this web site would not have the benefit of such local knowledge and so would be interested in a pilot’s view of the phenomenon.
,
That said, I recommend that you familiarise yourself with this thread as to the weather conditions on the day and the intended route – basically, it was clear across the sea right up to the shoreline and they were intending to turn (close in) up the coast remaining at low level.
I think that you would then find that your comment
<< … as they had just lost the horizon after flying into a fog bank>>
is rather ill considered:
there was no horizon for them ahead for some considerable time as the mist on the Mull merged with the low cloud base;
if there had been a fog bank out to sea at any appreciable distance from the shore, then there would not have been a problem as their action would have avoided the landfall – the first mist that they could have encountered was right on the Mull.