Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank
You wrote:
<<Walter, you've heard from crews who flew ZD976 just prior to its final flight that the equipment you keep describing was NOT FITTED to this or any other chinook Mk2, so please stop banging on about it!>>
What do you mean by or any other Chinook Mk2 ?
Do you mean by June 1994?
Do you mean ever?
Because it was fitted to some by 1995.
And, I believe, some equipment was delivered soon after the first HC2 a/c.
So your statement is misleading.
.
As I said in my previous post, why not (just for interest, say) just find out when the first sets were fitted and to which a/c.
You wrote:
<<Walter, you've heard from crews who flew ZD976 just prior to its final flight that the equipment you keep describing was NOT FITTED to this or any other chinook Mk2, so please stop banging on about it!>>
What do you mean by or any other Chinook Mk2 ?
Do you mean by June 1994?
Do you mean ever?
Because it was fitted to some by 1995.
And, I believe, some equipment was delivered soon after the first HC2 a/c.
So your statement is misleading.
.
As I said in my previous post, why not (just for interest, say) just find out when the first sets were fitted and to which a/c.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
Whether or not certain equipment was or was not subsequently delivered is irrelevant. The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor. For, I hope, total clarification, what I meant by "or any other Chinook Mk2" is that no Chinook Mk2 was fitted with such equipment at the time of the accident. Finding out, even "just for interest, say" is a waste of time - something fitted to the aircraft (if it was) after the accident is as relevant as saying that it was snowing in Luxembourg the morning after the accident.
Whether or not certain equipment was or was not subsequently delivered is irrelevant. The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor. For, I hope, total clarification, what I meant by "or any other Chinook Mk2" is that no Chinook Mk2 was fitted with such equipment at the time of the accident. Finding out, even "just for interest, say" is a waste of time - something fitted to the aircraft (if it was) after the accident is as relevant as saying that it was snowing in Luxembourg the morning after the accident.
The Rt Hon Gent
Have finally got round to/found time to (delete where inapplicable) sending a reply to the obfuscatory letter I received from the Min of State for the Armed Forces. Which you can see at
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...amletbuck1.jpg
(my post 2200 24 May)
Here's what I said (by snailmail)
The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP
Minister of State for the Armed Forces
Floor 5, Zone B, Main Building
Ministry of Defence
London
SW1A 2HB 2 June 2006
Dear Minister
My MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has sent me a copy of your letter D/Min(AF)/A1 1666/06/L/sb dated 9 May 2006, in which you responded to my mail to GCB regarding the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
In your letter, you agree that “Prior to ..... May 1997, Dr Reid and colleagues believed that there were sufficient grounds to question the finding of the Board of Inquiry.” So far so good. You then go on to list ten or a dozen eminent and distinguished people who have been consulted in the process of coming to your departmental decision not to change the finding of Gross Negligence. You include in your list the two air marshals who changed the original Board of Inquiry findings, and one is tempted to comment “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” Anyway, impressive as this list is, I have to say that its relevance to the question I asked escapes me, especially as nowhere in your letter do you actually answer my question.
So I ask you one more time - and this time I would really appreciate an answer - what was the further evidence, presented to him (the Secretary of State) in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever? In my mail to my MP, I also suggested he ask you to provide him with a copy of such evidence.
You end your letter hoping that what you have said is helpful. I have to disappoint you - it is not. Please would you try and make the next one really helpful? We’re not going to go away, you know.
By the way, I am perfectly happy to receive your reply by email (....), especially if that would speed up the process of getting a reply, which has not been noteworthy for its alacrity so far.
Copy to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown by email
airsound
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...amletbuck1.jpg
(my post 2200 24 May)
Here's what I said (by snailmail)
The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP
Minister of State for the Armed Forces
Floor 5, Zone B, Main Building
Ministry of Defence
London
SW1A 2HB 2 June 2006
Dear Minister
My MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has sent me a copy of your letter D/Min(AF)/A1 1666/06/L/sb dated 9 May 2006, in which you responded to my mail to GCB regarding the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
In your letter, you agree that “Prior to ..... May 1997, Dr Reid and colleagues believed that there were sufficient grounds to question the finding of the Board of Inquiry.” So far so good. You then go on to list ten or a dozen eminent and distinguished people who have been consulted in the process of coming to your departmental decision not to change the finding of Gross Negligence. You include in your list the two air marshals who changed the original Board of Inquiry findings, and one is tempted to comment “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” Anyway, impressive as this list is, I have to say that its relevance to the question I asked escapes me, especially as nowhere in your letter do you actually answer my question.
So I ask you one more time - and this time I would really appreciate an answer - what was the further evidence, presented to him (the Secretary of State) in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever? In my mail to my MP, I also suggested he ask you to provide him with a copy of such evidence.
You end your letter hoping that what you have said is helpful. I have to disappoint you - it is not. Please would you try and make the next one really helpful? We’re not going to go away, you know.
By the way, I am perfectly happy to receive your reply by email (....), especially if that would speed up the process of getting a reply, which has not been noteworthy for its alacrity so far.
Copy to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown by email
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 2nd Jun 2006 at 12:56.
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
In memory of 29 souls lost 12 years ago this very day.
Richard Allen
Christopher John Biles
Dennis Stanley Bunting
Desmond Patrick Conroy
Richard David Cook
Martin George Dalton
Phillip George Davidson
Stephen Davidson
John Robert Deverell
Christopher John Dockerty
John Charles Brian Fitzsimons
Graham William Forbes
Robert Patrick Foster
Richard Lawrence Gregory-Smith
William Rutherford Gwilliam
Kevin Andrew Hardie
John Stuart Haynes
Anthony Robert Hornby
Anne Catherine MacDonald
Kevin Michael Magee
Michael Bruce Maltby
Maurice McLaughlin Neilly
John Turbitt Phoenix
Roy Pugh
Stephen Lewis Rickard
Gary Paul Sparks
Jonathan Paul Tapper
John Tobias
George Victor Alexander Williams
With respect,
Brian
Richard Allen
Christopher John Biles
Dennis Stanley Bunting
Desmond Patrick Conroy
Richard David Cook
Martin George Dalton
Phillip George Davidson
Stephen Davidson
John Robert Deverell
Christopher John Dockerty
John Charles Brian Fitzsimons
Graham William Forbes
Robert Patrick Foster
Richard Lawrence Gregory-Smith
William Rutherford Gwilliam
Kevin Andrew Hardie
John Stuart Haynes
Anthony Robert Hornby
Anne Catherine MacDonald
Kevin Michael Magee
Michael Bruce Maltby
Maurice McLaughlin Neilly
John Turbitt Phoenix
Roy Pugh
Stephen Lewis Rickard
Gary Paul Sparks
Jonathan Paul Tapper
John Tobias
George Victor Alexander Williams
With respect,
Brian
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank
There are reasons why I cannot take a simple answer on this at face value:
One is that the approximate timing I have on delivery of some sets of the equipment (closely following the delivery of the HC2 ) makes it very possible that it could have been and if they had the kit why would not they have fitted it?
.
PLUS it would not necessarily have been apparent to those not clearly briefed that it was present nothing in the cockpit (data displayed automatically as waypoint on existing nav display and audio enabled just by selecting UHF guard on existing intercom) and the slot in the nav racks would not have been obvious and it was an easy fit/ remove mod;
.
Another is that on several occasions confident statements turned out to be incorrect, such as on the use of an HC2 someone had said something like the system could not have been a factor anyway as it was a last minute thing to use an HC2 instead of using 2 Pumas (cant find original post for this just now)
BUT
Some time back debate on this thread revealed that planning to use an HC2 was in hand at least some weeks beforehand, eg:
Cheapseat 16th April 2001
John Tapper and I sat under the tigers head in 230s crewroom WEEKS before the crash looking at a ½ mil map trying to find a way to use this fateful task as another reason not to allow the Mk2 Chinook into NI.
.
So it appears to me that it was planned weeks beforehand to use an HC2 that was not in the area until a few days before the flight why? What was so special about the HC2 that it just had to be used for this flight? I can only think that a demo of its capabilities could have interested these passengers such as the ability to home in accurately on ground personnel using the PRC system? Is there any other difference from the Mk1 that could have been of interest to them? I do not think so.
.
12 years justice delayed is justice denied
There are reasons why I cannot take a simple answer on this at face value:
One is that the approximate timing I have on delivery of some sets of the equipment (closely following the delivery of the HC2 ) makes it very possible that it could have been and if they had the kit why would not they have fitted it?
.
PLUS it would not necessarily have been apparent to those not clearly briefed that it was present nothing in the cockpit (data displayed automatically as waypoint on existing nav display and audio enabled just by selecting UHF guard on existing intercom) and the slot in the nav racks would not have been obvious and it was an easy fit/ remove mod;
.
Another is that on several occasions confident statements turned out to be incorrect, such as on the use of an HC2 someone had said something like the system could not have been a factor anyway as it was a last minute thing to use an HC2 instead of using 2 Pumas (cant find original post for this just now)
BUT
Some time back debate on this thread revealed that planning to use an HC2 was in hand at least some weeks beforehand, eg:
Cheapseat 16th April 2001
John Tapper and I sat under the tigers head in 230s crewroom WEEKS before the crash looking at a ½ mil map trying to find a way to use this fateful task as another reason not to allow the Mk2 Chinook into NI.
.
So it appears to me that it was planned weeks beforehand to use an HC2 that was not in the area until a few days before the flight why? What was so special about the HC2 that it just had to be used for this flight? I can only think that a demo of its capabilities could have interested these passengers such as the ability to home in accurately on ground personnel using the PRC system? Is there any other difference from the Mk1 that could have been of interest to them? I do not think so.
.
12 years justice delayed is justice denied
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
For those of you who are recent to this thread, please note that until a couple of hours before the flight, the HC1 was going to be used. It broke and right until the last minute, they tried to find a fix so that it could be used. All this bull by a certain person posting before me shows a basic lack of understanding of people talking straight. I personally sat with the crew before the flight and signed out at the same time. I walked out from the line with Jon Tapper. He did not want the MK2 and was verbal about it, which was unusual for him. I don't really know where this 'planned all along to use the Mk2' comes from. He will probably now reply with some dross trying to deflect from my eyewitness, I was actually there at the time, account. Every now and then I bite, sorry, but he really is a stroker.......
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayteeto
.
Further to Cheapseat 16th April 2001:
<<John Tapper and I sat under the tigers head in 230s crewroom WEEKS before the crash looking at a ½ mil map trying to find a way to use this fateful task as another reason not to allow the Mk2 Chinook into NI.>>
.
A posting by Ben Leice 12Apr2004:
<< JATOC claimed that on May 31 he had recommended the use of two Pumas for the transit but this was changed on June 1 to one Chinook.>>
.
Answered by Shy Torque 13Apr2004:
<<Two Pumas would have made infinitely more sense, especially in view of the importance of the pax.
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft. The statement was probably supposed to show that the Mk2 was perfectly safe in spite of what was being said by the people that flew them, including Boscombe Down's test pilots.>>
.
You may be talking straight but you do not give the whole picture my previous post to Meadowbank was meant to explain why I cannot take some apparently simple answers at face value. By now, the history of this flight should be much less ambiguous than it is as I have suggested before, perhaps you guys in the business could have got together off the thread and compiled, say, a timeline of decisions, events etc, all that could have been known getting your story as clear as possible and making public what is suitable (ie not classified). It should not be necessary to fish for such basic info and when a scenario is put forward as a catalyst for debate I am often amazed at the inconsistencies in the rebuttals.
.
Now, anybody out there with something constructive to say about the introduction into service of this very interesting system? (PRC etc.)
.
Further to Cheapseat 16th April 2001:
<<John Tapper and I sat under the tigers head in 230s crewroom WEEKS before the crash looking at a ½ mil map trying to find a way to use this fateful task as another reason not to allow the Mk2 Chinook into NI.>>
.
A posting by Ben Leice 12Apr2004:
<< JATOC claimed that on May 31 he had recommended the use of two Pumas for the transit but this was changed on June 1 to one Chinook.>>
.
Answered by Shy Torque 13Apr2004:
<<Two Pumas would have made infinitely more sense, especially in view of the importance of the pax.
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft. The statement was probably supposed to show that the Mk2 was perfectly safe in spite of what was being said by the people that flew them, including Boscombe Down's test pilots.>>
.
You may be talking straight but you do not give the whole picture my previous post to Meadowbank was meant to explain why I cannot take some apparently simple answers at face value. By now, the history of this flight should be much less ambiguous than it is as I have suggested before, perhaps you guys in the business could have got together off the thread and compiled, say, a timeline of decisions, events etc, all that could have been known getting your story as clear as possible and making public what is suitable (ie not classified). It should not be necessary to fish for such basic info and when a scenario is put forward as a catalyst for debate I am often amazed at the inconsistencies in the rebuttals.
.
Now, anybody out there with something constructive to say about the introduction into service of this very interesting system? (PRC etc.)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
Take a breath and slowly read this cut and paste from a recent Meadowbank post...
The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor.
Once more now taking long and slow breaths
The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor.
Now if you can, and I have no doubt you will, see anything even remotely ambiguous in the above please enlighten us. That is a clear and categoric statement from a miltary source that your theory is wrong and if you cannot see that then you really do need to seek help.
You also have, from Jayteeto, testimony that he witnessed FIRSTHAND that until the very last minute the HC1 was to be used but it went U/S. I have known the guy for years and there is no way he would make up this FACT!! Please explain how, if that was the case, your complicated scenario was suddenly put into action, unless you are trying to hint that the sudden unservicability of the HC1 and the associated compliance of all the groundcrew was part your conspiricy theory.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Take a breath and slowly read this cut and paste from a recent Meadowbank post...
The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor.
Once more now taking long and slow breaths
The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor.
Now if you can, and I have no doubt you will, see anything even remotely ambiguous in the above please enlighten us. That is a clear and categoric statement from a miltary source that your theory is wrong and if you cannot see that then you really do need to seek help.
You also have, from Jayteeto, testimony that he witnessed FIRSTHAND that until the very last minute the HC1 was to be used but it went U/S. I have known the guy for years and there is no way he would make up this FACT!! Please explain how, if that was the case, your complicated scenario was suddenly put into action, unless you are trying to hint that the sudden unservicability of the HC1 and the associated compliance of all the groundcrew was part your conspiricy theory.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 6th Jun 2006 at 20:07.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft.
Now Walter, read this bit again...... take your time...... "I still firmly believe". Now I only have a lowly C Grade English O level, but this is what is known as 'an opinion'. Just like your opinion, it is allowed to be thought. Now, what I wrote, I would be prepared to stand in a court of law, because I am saying "This actually happened and was said" Now this is called reality. Reality is when something actually happened. Opinion is when someone thinks something. I have my opinion on what happened in this crash, but because I wasn't in the cockpit at the time, I can't say with certainty what happened. This is the thrust of the campaign.
Someone might have been trying to make a political statement by ordering this flight, but not for the reasons you are trying to say. Now keep believing your theory if you wish, it is a free world, but please spare us this walters interpretation of reality. Now read this carefully. The crew did not want to take the Mk2 because they did not trust the FADEC system, they specifically took the time to run through the available drills for FADEC emergencies because in their OWN words (not mine) they had no idea what the software would do that day. When they were questioned what was the problem, they showed the so called 'aircrew manual' that had a lot of pages saying 'to be issued'. If the Mk1 had been available, they would have used it, without a doubt, whatsoever. Like all people, my memory is not perfect and I may have forgotton a few things that happened, but like a couple of other accident days when friends were killed, you tend to remember a little better than normal. If this accident had happened to some other pilots and crew, I might have been less intense about doubters, but you had to know how they worked in reality. The personalities in that crew had been there and done that, had the T Shirt, but they would not recklessly endanger lives. A lot of posters have theories on this thread and there lies the problem. Your theories are not enough to convict these men!!! If there is any doubt, there is no doubt, not guilty of negligence.
Now Walter, read this bit again...... take your time...... "I still firmly believe". Now I only have a lowly C Grade English O level, but this is what is known as 'an opinion'. Just like your opinion, it is allowed to be thought. Now, what I wrote, I would be prepared to stand in a court of law, because I am saying "This actually happened and was said" Now this is called reality. Reality is when something actually happened. Opinion is when someone thinks something. I have my opinion on what happened in this crash, but because I wasn't in the cockpit at the time, I can't say with certainty what happened. This is the thrust of the campaign.
Someone might have been trying to make a political statement by ordering this flight, but not for the reasons you are trying to say. Now keep believing your theory if you wish, it is a free world, but please spare us this walters interpretation of reality. Now read this carefully. The crew did not want to take the Mk2 because they did not trust the FADEC system, they specifically took the time to run through the available drills for FADEC emergencies because in their OWN words (not mine) they had no idea what the software would do that day. When they were questioned what was the problem, they showed the so called 'aircrew manual' that had a lot of pages saying 'to be issued'. If the Mk1 had been available, they would have used it, without a doubt, whatsoever. Like all people, my memory is not perfect and I may have forgotton a few things that happened, but like a couple of other accident days when friends were killed, you tend to remember a little better than normal. If this accident had happened to some other pilots and crew, I might have been less intense about doubters, but you had to know how they worked in reality. The personalities in that crew had been there and done that, had the T Shirt, but they would not recklessly endanger lives. A lot of posters have theories on this thread and there lies the problem. Your theories are not enough to convict these men!!! If there is any doubt, there is no doubt, not guilty of negligence.
The PM-in-waiting, David Cameron, has just written to me in response to my direct question asking him what he will do when he takes office after the inevitable demise of Noo Labour. He writes:
"Thank you for your further e-mail about the Chinook accident. I can understand and appreciate your concerns with regards to the verdict.
This is a longstanding issue and has been the subject of an Opposition Day debate.
I also signed EDM 651 on this issue (he included the text of the EDM at this point)
The House of Lords Select Committee report unanimously concluded that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
I believe now that the only honourable course for the Government is to reinstate the reputations of the two brave young pilots who lost their lives. As I see it, the Lords Select Committee confirms that there was a miscarriage of justice.
Thank you again for writing to me about this.
(DC)
I shall now e-mail DC to thank him for his reply - and to ask whether he will make it an urgent priority of his government to take the "only honourable course" of which he writes.
"Thank you for your further e-mail about the Chinook accident. I can understand and appreciate your concerns with regards to the verdict.
This is a longstanding issue and has been the subject of an Opposition Day debate.
I also signed EDM 651 on this issue (he included the text of the EDM at this point)
The House of Lords Select Committee report unanimously concluded that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
I believe now that the only honourable course for the Government is to reinstate the reputations of the two brave young pilots who lost their lives. As I see it, the Lords Select Committee confirms that there was a miscarriage of justice.
Thank you again for writing to me about this.
(DC)
I shall now e-mail DC to thank him for his reply - and to ask whether he will make it an urgent priority of his government to take the "only honourable course" of which he writes.
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
BEagle,
That's great news. Many thanks for sharing the content of the letter.
Having pressed the issue twice with Mr Cameron, I can only hope that I will also get a similar response from him in due course.
This reply is a clear statement from the gentleman concerned. If you haven't posted already, perhaps in addition to expressing your thanks, you could ask him how he intends to set aside the verdict.
Well done Sir!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
That's great news. Many thanks for sharing the content of the letter.
Having pressed the issue twice with Mr Cameron, I can only hope that I will also get a similar response from him in due course.
This reply is a clear statement from the gentleman concerned. If you haven't posted already, perhaps in addition to expressing your thanks, you could ask him how he intends to set aside the verdict.
Well done Sir!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Answered by Shy Torque 13Apr2004:
<<Two Pumas would have made infinitely more sense, especially in view of the importance of the pax.
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft. The statement was probably supposed to show that the Mk2 was perfectly safe in spite of what was being said by the people that flew them, including Boscombe Down's test pilots.>>
Despite my earlier quote, used above, which was based on what was known by me at the time, in view of any actual evidence to the contrary I am of course perfectly willing to believe this was NOT the case. I still stand by my first sentence though.
<<Two Pumas would have made infinitely more sense, especially in view of the importance of the pax.
I still firmly believe that someone above station level was trying to make a political statement by ordering this very important flight in this particular aircraft. The statement was probably supposed to show that the Mk2 was perfectly safe in spite of what was being said by the people that flew them, including Boscombe Down's test pilots.>>
Despite my earlier quote, used above, which was based on what was known by me at the time, in view of any actual evidence to the contrary I am of course perfectly willing to believe this was NOT the case. I still stand by my first sentence though.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
ShyTorque, I wasn't questioning you at all. I have always said that I could be wrong, because there IS doubt at what happened. My use of your statement was random choice, just to explain to Walter that there is a difference between real and opinion. Please accept a public apology from me.
BEagle,
Glad to see you'd more satisfaction from David Cameron than I had in 2002 when I requested that my MP, Paul Goodman, sign an Early Day Motion dealing with the Chinook affair.
I received a letter declining and (unnecessarily) lecturing me on the concept of the EDM and its limitations
Must write to him again.
Glad to see you'd more satisfaction from David Cameron than I had in 2002 when I requested that my MP, Paul Goodman, sign an Early Day Motion dealing with the Chinook affair.
I received a letter declining and (unnecessarily) lecturing me on the concept of the EDM and its limitations
Must write to him again.
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
If you do, Basil, you might like to remind Mr Goodman of the content of the letter that BEagle published.
It may help him make up his mind!
Thanks, as always, for your support.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
It may help him make up his mind!
Thanks, as always, for your support.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Incidentally, this was my reply to DC:
Dear David,
Many thanks for your letter Ref: (...) concerning the Chinook accident of 2 Jun 94.
When the current Government is voted out of office, as surely it will be before long, may I take it that your Government will make it an early priority to take the "only honourable course" of which you write - and to reinstate the reputations of the two pilots accordingly?
Sincerely,
(BEagle)
To which his research assistant replied (within the hour):
Dear (BEagle),
Thank you for your recent e-mail about the above mentioned issue.
I will print it out for David to read.
Kind regards, (.......)
Shall keep you all informed......
Dear David,
Many thanks for your letter Ref: (...) concerning the Chinook accident of 2 Jun 94.
When the current Government is voted out of office, as surely it will be before long, may I take it that your Government will make it an early priority to take the "only honourable course" of which you write - and to reinstate the reputations of the two pilots accordingly?
Sincerely,
(BEagle)
To which his research assistant replied (within the hour):
Dear (BEagle),
Thank you for your recent e-mail about the above mentioned issue.
I will print it out for David to read.
Kind regards, (.......)
Shall keep you all informed......
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
Originally Posted by jayteeto
ShyTorque, I wasn't questioning you at all. I have always said that I could be wrong, because there IS doubt at what happened. My use of your statement was random choice, just to explain to Walter that there is a difference between real and opinion. Please accept a public apology from me.
No apology needed, Jayteeto, but thanks anyway.