Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why, after all this time, all these posts, and all the inquiries, is it that the exact orders for the use of the aircraft are not known to the public?
Bearing in mind that so much has been made by the “Campaign” of the possible unserviceability of the aircraft, why has it not been clearly established why an HC2 was used that was the first of its type in service, that had only arrived in the area a few days prior to the flight, and that the captain had such reservations about?
Even if there had been a Mk1 available, is it certain that the captain would indeed have had the option of using it?
.
If it was planned to use an HC2 well in advance for this particular flight (in advance of its being in the area), should not the “Campaign” have established why?
.
If there had been alternatives but there was an order that the HC2 be used, should not the existence of such an order and the reason for it have been established some time ago?
.
While there is much conjecture around, these points should have been able to have been established by now with no doubt whatsoever.
Surely, any such constraints on the captain’s planning of the task should have been made clear when he has been so unjustly blamed?
.
Any objections by the MOD to releasing all such information (this far down the track when operational security cannot be a reasonable consideration) in a case where so many interested parties feel so strongly surely would point to there being something to hide.
.
Did it have to be an HC2?
Bearing in mind that so much has been made by the “Campaign” of the possible unserviceability of the aircraft, why has it not been clearly established why an HC2 was used that was the first of its type in service, that had only arrived in the area a few days prior to the flight, and that the captain had such reservations about?
Even if there had been a Mk1 available, is it certain that the captain would indeed have had the option of using it?
.
If it was planned to use an HC2 well in advance for this particular flight (in advance of its being in the area), should not the “Campaign” have established why?
.
If there had been alternatives but there was an order that the HC2 be used, should not the existence of such an order and the reason for it have been established some time ago?
.
While there is much conjecture around, these points should have been able to have been established by now with no doubt whatsoever.
Surely, any such constraints on the captain’s planning of the task should have been made clear when he has been so unjustly blamed?
.
Any objections by the MOD to releasing all such information (this far down the track when operational security cannot be a reasonable consideration) in a case where so many interested parties feel so strongly surely would point to there being something to hide.
.
Did it have to be an HC2?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter,
HQNI had a limited number of Transport Helicopter assets and these were tasked by its own Air Tasking Cell.
As a helicopter cannot be in 2 places at once it would have made sense (from a tasking point of view) to utilise the Chinook to carry the large passenger load to a destination "out of Theatre", and retain "in Theatre" the 2 Puma's that had been originally tasked. This would enable them to retain as much flexibility as possible in providing responses to Security Incidents.
You have to remember that this flight was an HQNI generated task; not one that was initiated further up the Command chain.
HQNI had a limited number of Transport Helicopter assets and these were tasked by its own Air Tasking Cell.
As a helicopter cannot be in 2 places at once it would have made sense (from a tasking point of view) to utilise the Chinook to carry the large passenger load to a destination "out of Theatre", and retain "in Theatre" the 2 Puma's that had been originally tasked. This would enable them to retain as much flexibility as possible in providing responses to Security Incidents.
You have to remember that this flight was an HQNI generated task; not one that was initiated further up the Command chain.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I do hope that the reply to your latest letter to Cameron is more precise; he has offered you no support in his current letter. Do not be fooled by our decitful ruling class, Cameron is a class deciver. He is the greater supporter of the blair gov IMHO.
I do hope that the reply to your latest letter to Cameron is more precise; he has offered you no support in his current letter. Do not be fooled by our decitful ruling class, Cameron is a class deciver. He is the greater supporter of the blair gov IMHO.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
In response to your 2246, the information has been passed to the relevant experts and will, I hope, lead to some action, but this all takes time and, as is the nature of much intelligence info, it is inappropriate to publish yet.
MB
In response to your 2246, the information has been passed to the relevant experts and will, I hope, lead to some action, but this all takes time and, as is the nature of much intelligence info, it is inappropriate to publish yet.
MB
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Sorry, but you don't get me that easily! On an anonymous forum like this, I have no idea who you are or whom you represent and, further, I admit that what I perceive as your apparent support for the official line makes me wary. Be that as it may, it would be foolhardy of me to disclose this information on a public site accessible to thousands, including those who wish to continue to defend what I consider to be the indefensible.
Sorry, but you don't get me that easily! On an anonymous forum like this, I have no idea who you are or whom you represent and, further, I admit that what I perceive as your apparent support for the official line makes me wary. Be that as it may, it would be foolhardy of me to disclose this information on a public site accessible to thousands, including those who wish to continue to defend what I consider to be the indefensible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Meadowbank.
You said a few days ago 'inappropriate to publish yet' So we are still waiting. And despite your apparent suspicions I have no official status these days and nor am I the air marshals spokesman (as Blakely seemed to think!). I am merely an observer, astonished at some of the theories that have developed over what many see as a straightforward case of CFIT (and please let us not start that one up again!)JP
You said a few days ago 'inappropriate to publish yet' So we are still waiting. And despite your apparent suspicions I have no official status these days and nor am I the air marshals spokesman (as Blakely seemed to think!). I am merely an observer, astonished at some of the theories that have developed over what many see as a straightforward case of CFIT (and please let us not start that one up again!)JP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am merely an observer, astonished at some of the theories that have developed over what many see as a straightforward case of CFIT (and please let us not start that one up again!)JP
But you are right, let us not start that one up again! TR
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 20th Jun 2006 at 23:30.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point being that, however astonishing some of the non-CFIT theories are, several are plausible and cannot be ruled out. There is, therefore, doubt as to the cause of the accident and the finding of gross negligence is unsafe and should be quashed. This has been agreed by a House of Lords select committee, yet the MoD somehow still sees fit to ignore what is surely the highest Appeal Court in the land.
JP,
And don't you forget that it was voted down by a late influx of Blair stooges who came in at 10:30 pm just for the vote. None of them had listened to the excellent debate. I know this is the parliamentary system for political issues but it should not be allowed for matters of justice like this.
And don't you forget that it was voted down by a late influx of Blair stooges who came in at 10:30 pm just for the vote. None of them had listened to the excellent debate. I know this is the parliamentary system for political issues but it should not be allowed for matters of justice like this.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Pulse 1 is right, though it doesn't just aply to Blairites. No doubt there were plenty of others who had paid no attention to the debate but who voted in support of the Establishment (MoD) rather than examine what the Lords had managed to discern.
Pulse 1 is right, though it doesn't just aply to Blairites. No doubt there were plenty of others who had paid no attention to the debate but who voted in support of the Establishment (MoD) rather than examine what the Lords had managed to discern.
Hi Brian.
I have, just today received a reply from my MP Jane Kennedy (Liverpool Wavertree), she has stated that she has written to the relelvent Minister requesting a response after I expressed my concern about the crash. She has also stated that she is not aware of the intricacies of the crash other than what has been reported in the press, but she is aware of a number of investigations subsequent to the BoI. A strange comment from an ex Northern Ireland Security Minister.
I am ever hopeful of a suitable outcome. Maybe she is sensing which way the Westminster coffee smell is going, and is trying to land on a suitable side of the fence, in view of an upcoming change at the top. Either of the 2 front runners represent Scottish constituancies, with all the implications that brings up about English and Scottish sensitivities about leadership.
I will give her about a month, then e-mail her again if I do not receive a reply.
Cheers
Air pig.
I have, just today received a reply from my MP Jane Kennedy (Liverpool Wavertree), she has stated that she has written to the relelvent Minister requesting a response after I expressed my concern about the crash. She has also stated that she is not aware of the intricacies of the crash other than what has been reported in the press, but she is aware of a number of investigations subsequent to the BoI. A strange comment from an ex Northern Ireland Security Minister.
I am ever hopeful of a suitable outcome. Maybe she is sensing which way the Westminster coffee smell is going, and is trying to land on a suitable side of the fence, in view of an upcoming change at the top. Either of the 2 front runners represent Scottish constituancies, with all the implications that brings up about English and Scottish sensitivities about leadership.
I will give her about a month, then e-mail her again if I do not receive a reply.
Cheers
Air pig.
Last edited by air pig; 21st Jun 2006 at 18:31.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1
Historically, the House of Lords is the highest Court in the United Kingdom; operating on a majority vote to decide the issue. This no longer applies, of course, in Criminal or Civil cases where the Law Lords alone decide the issue.
The principle remains; the Lords were not convinced.
Historically, the House of Lords is the highest Court in the United Kingdom; operating on a majority vote to decide the issue. This no longer applies, of course, in Criminal or Civil cases where the Law Lords alone decide the issue.
The principle remains; the Lords were not convinced.
jp & catazou,
Technically you are both correct. In this particular case, which is one concerning law rather than policy, the views of the Law Lords are more significant. On this matter of law, the Lords' vote was rather akin to a jury being absent during the summing up and then being allowed to decide on the verdict.
Technically you are both correct. In this particular case, which is one concerning law rather than policy, the views of the Law Lords are more significant. On this matter of law, the Lords' vote was rather akin to a jury being absent during the summing up and then being allowed to decide on the verdict.
Just a numbered other
The principle remains; the Lords were not convinced.
How can one be convinced by an argument you haven't the courtesy to listen to.
Guthrie and his cronies arrived fresh from the bar to sink the motion.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1 & Ark Royal,
Just like the House of Commons any day of the week that a vote is due on some proposed leglislation. It does not mean that the MPs (particularly Ministers and their "Shadows"") who are not in the Chamber to listen to the full debate are lacking in zeal or neglecting their constituents interests; rather that they are devoting that time to the particular role that has been delegated to them by either the PM or their Party Leader.
Regarding the intentionally insulting reference to "Guthrie and his cronies" ; those distinguished Senior Officers who have been honoured with a Peerage would have little need to be lectured about Military Law and Boards of Inquiry by those who have never seen Military Service.
Just like the House of Commons any day of the week that a vote is due on some proposed leglislation. It does not mean that the MPs (particularly Ministers and their "Shadows"") who are not in the Chamber to listen to the full debate are lacking in zeal or neglecting their constituents interests; rather that they are devoting that time to the particular role that has been delegated to them by either the PM or their Party Leader.
Regarding the intentionally insulting reference to "Guthrie and his cronies" ; those distinguished Senior Officers who have been honoured with a Peerage would have little need to be lectured about Military Law and Boards of Inquiry by those who have never seen Military Service.
Last edited by cazatou; 22nd Jun 2006 at 15:15.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
The Lords decision to overturn the committee was not like most Government legislation. The committee had voted to exonerate two fine pilots. The full Lords decision to overrule them negated this decision. In effect, the members who voted to overrule the committee, without listening to the arguments, were no more responsible than members of a jury who had spent all day in a pub getting P#ssed and then come in only to give the guilty verdict. If you believe this to be right and fair you should go into politics, where such hypocrisy is common.
The Lords decision to overturn the committee was not like most Government legislation. The committee had voted to exonerate two fine pilots. The full Lords decision to overrule them negated this decision. In effect, the members who voted to overrule the committee, without listening to the arguments, were no more responsible than members of a jury who had spent all day in a pub getting P#ssed and then come in only to give the guilty verdict. If you believe this to be right and fair you should go into politics, where such hypocrisy is common.