Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
I read the BOI from cover to cover several times over a period of 4 months before it was in the Public Domain. I was of the opinion then that,in the light of the evidence that they had collected, the President and members of the team appointed by the AOC to investigate the circumstances surrounding the crash had failed to "Bite the Bullet" in their terms of reference in respect of negligence. That opinion has not changed.
The decision as to whether the actions of the crew constituted negligence was the province of AOC 1 Group NOT the Wg Cdr and 2 Sqn Ldrs who consituted the BOI. That decision was subsequently ratified by AOC in C STC.
Because of the Public interest in the Accident, and the intense media speculation, the BOI was also reviewed by CAS who did not see fit to change the findings.
This sequence of events was as laid down in the Air Force Act ratified by Parliament.
It would seem that Parliament has not deemed it necessary to amend the Air Force Act.
I read the BOI from cover to cover several times over a period of 4 months before it was in the Public Domain. I was of the opinion then that,in the light of the evidence that they had collected, the President and members of the team appointed by the AOC to investigate the circumstances surrounding the crash had failed to "Bite the Bullet" in their terms of reference in respect of negligence. That opinion has not changed.
The decision as to whether the actions of the crew constituted negligence was the province of AOC 1 Group NOT the Wg Cdr and 2 Sqn Ldrs who consituted the BOI. That decision was subsequently ratified by AOC in C STC.
Because of the Public interest in the Accident, and the intense media speculation, the BOI was also reviewed by CAS who did not see fit to change the findings.
This sequence of events was as laid down in the Air Force Act ratified by Parliament.
It would seem that Parliament has not deemed it necessary to amend the Air Force Act.
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.
This country has a proud tradition of keeping the judiciary separate from political power. In my view the Lords enquiry was all about evidence and the vote broke with that tradition.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pulse1
Like Lord Melvyn Bragg, do you mean?
This country has a proud tradition of keeping the judiciary separate from political power. In my view the Lords enquiry was all about evidence and the vote broke with that tradition.
This country has a proud tradition of keeping the judiciary separate from political power. In my view the Lords enquiry was all about evidence and the vote broke with that tradition.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Dalek&Pulse1.
The fact is that it was the chairman of the Mull Lobby who persuaded four members of the HofL to review the case, and who then insisted on a Lords-wide vote on their opinion that the BofI findings be overturned. It really will not do to moan now because the vote went against the opinion of the four Lords. And nor does it help to insult very distinguished and gallant officers such as Guthrie. JP
The fact is that it was the chairman of the Mull Lobby who persuaded four members of the HofL to review the case, and who then insisted on a Lords-wide vote on their opinion that the BofI findings be overturned. It really will not do to moan now because the vote went against the opinion of the four Lords. And nor does it help to insult very distinguished and gallant officers such as Guthrie. JP
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP - but that is the whole crux of this thread. It is OK for the RAF to insult the dead officers, but not for us to criticise those tucked up cosily for a snooze in the Lords. Where is your evidence to suggest that these Lords were not in the bar? You have none, yet you have sprung to their defence based on previous service record and your opinion that they are 'gallant'. All the latest posts on this thread are suggesting is that many of those that voted may have done so in such a way to defend their peers and the senior officers involved because they felt it was their duty to do so. It rightly questions whether they agreed with the report or were politically motivated.
You should note that I have no personal opinion of the Lords involved, I am just prepared to see both possibilities, which is something some people are clearly unable to do.
You should note that I have no personal opinion of the Lords involved, I am just prepared to see both possibilities, which is something some people are clearly unable to do.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=South Bound] It is OK for the RAF to insult the dead officers, but not for us to criticise those tucked up cosily for a snooze in the Lords. Where is your evidence to suggest that these Lords were not in the bar? You have none, yet you have sprung to their defence based on previous service record and your opinion that they are 'gallant'.
Let us just amend that a little.
"It is OK for PPruners to insult the Reviewing Officers, but not for us to criticise those who attack distinguished Officers from their armchairs. Where is your evidence to prove that the Pilots were not negligent? You have none, yet you have sprung to their defence based on previous service record and your opinion that they were "exceptional".
Let us just amend that a little.
"It is OK for PPruners to insult the Reviewing Officers, but not for us to criticise those who attack distinguished Officers from their armchairs. Where is your evidence to prove that the Pilots were not negligent? You have none, yet you have sprung to their defence based on previous service record and your opinion that they were "exceptional".
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Caz, lost me there. Don't need to prove they were not negligent, thought the argument is that we can't show that they were.
Last edited by South Bound; 23rd Jun 2006 at 15:22.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't insulting anyone, as I said, I have no frame of reference to do so. I was referring to an earlier post, and the horror that it elicited and was trying to make a point about people springing to others defence without all the evidence. Clearly without knowing the facts it is inappropriate to make a definitive statement over whether or not certain Lords were informed or not when they voted.
All I said was that there was a chance some were motivated by factors other than the evidence put in front of them - this happens in politics all the time. But we have no way of knowing, do we?
Again, we are arguing without all of the evidence, which is what the HCSC and many on pprune think happened with the accident. Chill guys, I was not insulting anyone.
All I said was that there was a chance some were motivated by factors other than the evidence put in front of them - this happens in politics all the time. But we have no way of knowing, do we?
Again, we are arguing without all of the evidence, which is what the HCSC and many on pprune think happened with the accident. Chill guys, I was not insulting anyone.
This argument is getting a bit silly. If we filter out all the noise of the last few posts we get:
jp said in response to Meadowbank:
southbound said:
* the late influx of peers who came in just for the vote without listening to the debate. Where they were during the debate is not the issue.
jp said in response to Meadowbank:
I hear you,but do not forget that the verdict of the four Lords who volunteered to look at the case was thrown out in a free vote by the whole House.
It rightly questions whether they* agreed with the report or were politically motivated.
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.
Well done for sticking with it. I hope Jane Kennedy forwards the stock answer she will recieve. Advise her to speak with Lord Martin O'Neill (Lab) in order that she then gets both sides of the debate.
Cazatou,
As always, I trust that you are well. Taking your amended point at 14:45 (#2278) - Where is your evidence to prove that the Pilots were not negligent?
I don't have any. I respectfully remind you that Annex G to AP 3207, Chapter 8, Paragraph 9 states "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".
It does not read "Only in cases where there is a lack of certainty should deceased aircrew be deemed negligent".
The onus is on the MoD to prove their case, not to me, nor anyone else, to disprove it.
I know we have disagreed on this before, so I don't aim to labour the point. I respect your different opinion, but wonder how your conclusion actually satisfies the burden of proof required.
I hope you are enjoying some of the good weather.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Well done for sticking with it. I hope Jane Kennedy forwards the stock answer she will recieve. Advise her to speak with Lord Martin O'Neill (Lab) in order that she then gets both sides of the debate.
Cazatou,
As always, I trust that you are well. Taking your amended point at 14:45 (#2278) - Where is your evidence to prove that the Pilots were not negligent?
I don't have any. I respectfully remind you that Annex G to AP 3207, Chapter 8, Paragraph 9 states "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".
It does not read "Only in cases where there is a lack of certainty should deceased aircrew be deemed negligent".
The onus is on the MoD to prove their case, not to me, nor anyone else, to disprove it.
I know we have disagreed on this before, so I don't aim to labour the point. I respect your different opinion, but wonder how your conclusion actually satisfies the burden of proof required.
I hope you are enjoying some of the good weather.
Regards, as always.
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
Cazatou,
apologies, I missed the point you were making. I should have known a little better
Sorry to hear of the dreadful weather.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
apologies, I missed the point you were making. I should have known a little better
Sorry to hear of the dreadful weather.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Bound
If you read the transcript of the HOL debate you will note that Lord Guthrie made his speech at 9:53PM and that Lord Chalfont made the final speech at 0021AM the following morning before the vote.
May I suggest that you read the speech by Lord Glenarther made at 1037PM. He is a former British Army and British Airways Helicopter Pilot, Chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board, Chairman of the European Helicopter Association and Chairman of the International Federation of Helicopter Associations.
If you read the transcript of the HOL debate you will note that Lord Guthrie made his speech at 9:53PM and that Lord Chalfont made the final speech at 0021AM the following morning before the vote.
May I suggest that you read the speech by Lord Glenarther made at 1037PM. He is a former British Army and British Airways Helicopter Pilot, Chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board, Chairman of the European Helicopter Association and Chairman of the International Federation of Helicopter Associations.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
cazatou
I think it is of little help to highlight individual speeches; but, if you insist, I suggest you also read the quotes of a former CDS which Lord Chalfont used in his closing remarks of the debate.
Reading David Craig's input, I'm amazed at his accusation that the Select Committee 'moved the goalposts'; my interpretation of his remarks is that it is he who has done the moving.
Without wishing to be disrespectful, that night's conclusion stems, IMHO, from a closing of the Air Ranks.
I think it is of little help to highlight individual speeches; but, if you insist, I suggest you also read the quotes of a former CDS which Lord Chalfont used in his closing remarks of the debate.
Reading David Craig's input, I'm amazed at his accusation that the Select Committee 'moved the goalposts'; my interpretation of his remarks is that it is he who has done the moving.
Without wishing to be disrespectful, that night's conclusion stems, IMHO, from a closing of the Air Ranks.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne,
I first met Lord Craig when he was an Air Commodore doing a refresher at Manby. His Instructor was a Fg Off.
15 years later he shielded me (as CDS) from some nasty imputations from Civil Servants after a flight to Gibralter where the Met Office got it spectacularly wrong. Best exhibition of St Elmo's fire I have ever seen - (though on the Jet Provost you could get it to appear out of the ends of your fingers if you were careful.)
Instead of casting aspersions at distinguished Senior Officers; why not put yourself in the position of Tapper or Cook and see whether you would have done everything in exactly the same way as they did. Perhaps there is something that you would have done differently which could have prevented the tragedy.
I first met Lord Craig when he was an Air Commodore doing a refresher at Manby. His Instructor was a Fg Off.
15 years later he shielded me (as CDS) from some nasty imputations from Civil Servants after a flight to Gibralter where the Met Office got it spectacularly wrong. Best exhibition of St Elmo's fire I have ever seen - (though on the Jet Provost you could get it to appear out of the ends of your fingers if you were careful.)
Instead of casting aspersions at distinguished Senior Officers; why not put yourself in the position of Tapper or Cook and see whether you would have done everything in exactly the same way as they did. Perhaps there is something that you would have done differently which could have prevented the tragedy.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
cazatou
A curious response. There is no need to rehearse your association with Lord Craig. I know him well enough having been a senior member of his staff at HQ 1Gp, and again at MoD: a good boss, and a nice person. I do not cast aspersions at any distinguished senior officers (I also know the two air marshals)- I am simply in the camp that believes that they are wrong.
I am unable to put myself in the two pilots' position because, like yourself, I do not know what happened in the latter stages of the flight. Also like yourself, I feel that the likelihood is that they screwed up; but given the formal burden of proof etc etc, I believe that an 'open verdict' is the correct outcome. I don't hold any conspiracy theory, but I do feel that the well-rehearsed unknowns/uncertainties outweigh the line adhered to by MoD.
You might also be interested in an extract from an earlier post of mine:
'I was the President of a BoI which investigated a fatal Tornado accident in the mid-eighties. From the evidence available, we postulated that the crew had become disorientated whilst manoeuvring at lowish level, over the sea, at night. However, although the probability was high, there was insufficient evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was the case. My reviewing officers agreed, and no blame was attached to the crew.'
If you've the time or inclination, you may want to have a peep at my other earlier posts, 588/592, when I was someone else!
Regards
A curious response. There is no need to rehearse your association with Lord Craig. I know him well enough having been a senior member of his staff at HQ 1Gp, and again at MoD: a good boss, and a nice person. I do not cast aspersions at any distinguished senior officers (I also know the two air marshals)- I am simply in the camp that believes that they are wrong.
I am unable to put myself in the two pilots' position because, like yourself, I do not know what happened in the latter stages of the flight. Also like yourself, I feel that the likelihood is that they screwed up; but given the formal burden of proof etc etc, I believe that an 'open verdict' is the correct outcome. I don't hold any conspiracy theory, but I do feel that the well-rehearsed unknowns/uncertainties outweigh the line adhered to by MoD.
You might also be interested in an extract from an earlier post of mine:
'I was the President of a BoI which investigated a fatal Tornado accident in the mid-eighties. From the evidence available, we postulated that the crew had become disorientated whilst manoeuvring at lowish level, over the sea, at night. However, although the probability was high, there was insufficient evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was the case. My reviewing officers agreed, and no blame was attached to the crew.'
If you've the time or inclination, you may want to have a peep at my other earlier posts, 588/592, when I was someone else!
Regards
Last edited by jindabyne; 24th Jun 2006 at 22:49. Reason: To include last sentence
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Lord Glenarthur summarised the situation quite well – certainly it seems to me in the absence of any special tasking or imposed constraints not yet revealed that the Campaign doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
.
I have made a suggestion of an extraordinary tasking that I believe could possibly have explained what happened but no one else wants to follow it through.
.
I know that the requisite equipment was available around the time and that the fit was straightforward and cannot understand why it would not have been fitted to the first of the new, beaut HC2s. It was, after all, a significant ability for such a helo to be able to home in (getting range and azimuth) on a PRC 112 held by personnel awaiting extraction/ resupply, etc. Some of the team on board would surely have been interested in a demo.
.
If it was not, just when was the first such equipment fitted and tried out in an HC2?
(A straightforward and, after such a time, innocuous question, I would have thought and at least an interesting topic.)
.
I have made a suggestion of an extraordinary tasking that I believe could possibly have explained what happened but no one else wants to follow it through.
.
I know that the requisite equipment was available around the time and that the fit was straightforward and cannot understand why it would not have been fitted to the first of the new, beaut HC2s. It was, after all, a significant ability for such a helo to be able to home in (getting range and azimuth) on a PRC 112 held by personnel awaiting extraction/ resupply, etc. Some of the team on board would surely have been interested in a demo.
.
If it was not, just when was the first such equipment fitted and tried out in an HC2?
(A straightforward and, after such a time, innocuous question, I would have thought and at least an interesting topic.)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
"If it was not, just when was the first such equipment fitted and tried out in an HC2?
(A straightforward and, after such a time, innocuous question, I would have thought and at least an interesting topic.)"
It might be an interesting topic to you. Why not open a completely separate thread about it and see what responses are forthcoming.
(A straightforward and, after such a time, innocuous question, I would have thought and at least an interesting topic.)"
It might be an interesting topic to you. Why not open a completely separate thread about it and see what responses are forthcoming.
