Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Thanks for the reminder - shall give Dave the Camer-chameleon another nudge!
"Dear (research assistant),
Has David had time yet to decide whether his future Government will make it an early priority to take the "only honourable course" of which he wrote - and to reinstate the reputations of the two pilots accordingly?
Regards,
(BEagle)"
I do wish Weird Wally would stop his little green men theories - they are just losing the campaign much needed credibility.
"Dear (research assistant),
Has David had time yet to decide whether his future Government will make it an early priority to take the "only honourable course" of which he wrote - and to reinstate the reputations of the two pilots accordingly?
Regards,
(BEagle)"
I do wish Weird Wally would stop his little green men theories - they are just losing the campaign much needed credibility.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZD 576
BEagle
I know that this is anathema to you but, perhaps, you may just consider the possibility that you were wrong.
Just give one example of where, on this particular sortie, the crew complied with the procedures laid down in ASI's and GASO's.
If you can find such an example then please explain why this did not prevent the tragic occurence.
If you cannot find such an example - then will you admit at least the possibility of negligence on the part of the aircrew.
I know that this is anathema to you but, perhaps, you may just consider the possibility that you were wrong.
Just give one example of where, on this particular sortie, the crew complied with the procedures laid down in ASI's and GASO's.
If you can find such an example then please explain why this did not prevent the tragic occurence.
If you cannot find such an example - then will you admit at least the possibility of negligence on the part of the aircrew.
I know that this is anathema to you but, perhaps, you may just consider the possibility that you were wrong.
Surely it is clear to you by now that the only thing we can be certain about is that there is doubt. All the campaign is trying to do is get everyone to agree that the tiniest bit of doubt makes the current verdict of the reviewing officers against the rules of the time.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
Pulse hit the nail on the head. Many of us, like you have read the BOI from cover to cover (not four times though). I , and probably many others, accept there is likely to be some element of aircrew error, possibly even negligence.
Because of a distinctly iffy release to service, the two AM,s had a vested interest in placing all the blame on the pilots. I am not saying they did, their motives may well have been pure. But by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered impartial.
The HOL committee and the Scottish Sheriff's court, reviewed all the evidence and strongly disagree with you. Do you doubt their impartiality?
Pulse hit the nail on the head. Many of us, like you have read the BOI from cover to cover (not four times though). I , and probably many others, accept there is likely to be some element of aircrew error, possibly even negligence.
Because of a distinctly iffy release to service, the two AM,s had a vested interest in placing all the blame on the pilots. I am not saying they did, their motives may well have been pure. But by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered impartial.
The HOL committee and the Scottish Sheriff's court, reviewed all the evidence and strongly disagree with you. Do you doubt their impartiality?
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
I am always careful not to attempt to offend anyone on pprune. If I have done so here, I have clearly missed it. I do not see how:
"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."
could offend. If it is something obvious or there is a double meaning, someone please let me know so I can edit the message to remove the offensive phrase accordingly.
I am always careful not to attempt to offend anyone on pprune. If I have done so here, I have clearly missed it. I do not see how:
"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."
could offend. If it is something obvious or there is a double meaning, someone please let me know so I can edit the message to remove the offensive phrase accordingly.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
I do not doubt the impartiality but I question their Airmanship.
One could not say of Lord Glenarthur, who gave an impressive speech in the HOL debate, that he was lacking in either.
There was, however, one thing in the HOL report which caught my eye - and that was in relation to the yachtsman who gave evidence to the commitee. The "lone yachtsman", as the BOI referred to him, had given evidence to the BOI, FAI and the HOL Committee. MOD pointed out that his evidence regarding the weather was different at each Inquiry but nobody commented on his statement that he called out to his crewman to come and look at the helicopter.
THERE WERE TWO EYE-WITNESSES TO THE LAST MINUTES OF ZD576 BUT ONE HAS NEVER GIVEN EVIDENCE TO WHAT HE/SHE SAW.
I do not doubt the impartiality but I question their Airmanship.
One could not say of Lord Glenarthur, who gave an impressive speech in the HOL debate, that he was lacking in either.
There was, however, one thing in the HOL report which caught my eye - and that was in relation to the yachtsman who gave evidence to the commitee. The "lone yachtsman", as the BOI referred to him, had given evidence to the BOI, FAI and the HOL Committee. MOD pointed out that his evidence regarding the weather was different at each Inquiry but nobody commented on his statement that he called out to his crewman to come and look at the helicopter.
THERE WERE TWO EYE-WITNESSES TO THE LAST MINUTES OF ZD576 BUT ONE HAS NEVER GIVEN EVIDENCE TO WHAT HE/SHE SAW.
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,
I wonder if the yachtsman, Mr Mark Holbrook struggled to recall events as he was not debriefed immediately. I don't wish to be accused of selective quotations, but here are a few comments made by Mr Holbrook to the House of Lords Select Committee.
"Seven years have now passed since the accident however, and therefore in order to refresh my memory I have had to now review the papers sent to me by Mr Makower, and in that review I have been surprised and distressed to understand from the evidence to this inquiry from Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten that the nub of the issue as far as the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the two pilots turns on the flight rule regime that the aircraft was in at the time that I, as the last eyewitness, saw it. The reason I am surprised, my Lord Chairman, is that throughout the last seven years I have always felt that my evidence was nothing other than corrobatory - confirming what had already been gleaned from other witnesses and events. It now seems to me however, if I have understood Sir William's evidence correctly, that the direction, altitude, attitude, speed and visibility that the aircraft was experiencing at the time of the last sighting is central to a determination if the crew had an option available to them to continue under visual flight rules or alternatively had to make a transition to instrument flight rules. Against that yardstick of relevance to the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the aircrew, my Lord Chairman, I have to tell you and your Committee that I feel my evidence was not collected with either the diligence or professionalism that the aircrew or their families have a right, from my perspective as a layman, to expect."
and...
"I am by training however a research worker, I have been trained to observe a situation which in itself may very well be outwith my ken. I had, at the time, a vivid mental picture of the aircraft which if I had been debriefed fully would surely have yielded more information about those fateful last minutes than you have in front of you today. To this day, My Lord, despite having asked repeatedly, I have never seen photographs of the aircraft at different heights and ranger, never mind had the opportunity of seeing one of the aircraft flying at differing speeds or climbing."
I know you don't blame Mr Holbrook, Cazatou, but perhaps, had he been debriefed a little more promptly and formally, his evidence may have been afforded a little more respect by those who reviewed the evidence presented to them. He was, after all, the last known eye-witness.
Also, by my own comments, I do not wish to be disrespectful to those involved in the evidence collation stages. I acknowledge that they were very difficult times. I merely wish to point out some mitigating circumstances.
My best, as always.
Brian
I wonder if the yachtsman, Mr Mark Holbrook struggled to recall events as he was not debriefed immediately. I don't wish to be accused of selective quotations, but here are a few comments made by Mr Holbrook to the House of Lords Select Committee.
"Seven years have now passed since the accident however, and therefore in order to refresh my memory I have had to now review the papers sent to me by Mr Makower, and in that review I have been surprised and distressed to understand from the evidence to this inquiry from Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten that the nub of the issue as far as the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the two pilots turns on the flight rule regime that the aircraft was in at the time that I, as the last eyewitness, saw it. The reason I am surprised, my Lord Chairman, is that throughout the last seven years I have always felt that my evidence was nothing other than corrobatory - confirming what had already been gleaned from other witnesses and events. It now seems to me however, if I have understood Sir William's evidence correctly, that the direction, altitude, attitude, speed and visibility that the aircraft was experiencing at the time of the last sighting is central to a determination if the crew had an option available to them to continue under visual flight rules or alternatively had to make a transition to instrument flight rules. Against that yardstick of relevance to the finding of Gross Negligence on the part of the aircrew, my Lord Chairman, I have to tell you and your Committee that I feel my evidence was not collected with either the diligence or professionalism that the aircrew or their families have a right, from my perspective as a layman, to expect."
and...
"I am by training however a research worker, I have been trained to observe a situation which in itself may very well be outwith my ken. I had, at the time, a vivid mental picture of the aircraft which if I had been debriefed fully would surely have yielded more information about those fateful last minutes than you have in front of you today. To this day, My Lord, despite having asked repeatedly, I have never seen photographs of the aircraft at different heights and ranger, never mind had the opportunity of seeing one of the aircraft flying at differing speeds or climbing."
I know you don't blame Mr Holbrook, Cazatou, but perhaps, had he been debriefed a little more promptly and formally, his evidence may have been afforded a little more respect by those who reviewed the evidence presented to them. He was, after all, the last known eye-witness.
Also, by my own comments, I do not wish to be disrespectful to those involved in the evidence collation stages. I acknowledge that they were very difficult times. I merely wish to point out some mitigating circumstances.
My best, as always.
Brian
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
I think that you and I are at one. It is not the fault of the Yachtsman if he was not asked the correct questions. He contacted Strathclyde Police of his own accord.
The BOI failed to ask the relevant questions. As a result no-one was aware, until the HOL hearings, that there was another witness and by then it was 10 years too late.
I think that you and I are at one. It is not the fault of the Yachtsman if he was not asked the correct questions. He contacted Strathclyde Police of his own accord.
The BOI failed to ask the relevant questions. As a result no-one was aware, until the HOL hearings, that there was another witness and by then it was 10 years too late.
Last edited by cazatou; 26th Jun 2006 at 19:09.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Unless there is a contemporaneous record of what the crewman saw, then it would be difficult to convince anybody that a memory of a relatively fleeting incident 12 years ago is absolutely correct.
The Yachtsman has given 3 different accounts to 3 different inquiries over the years.
The question, surely, is why did the BOI not obtain the information.
Unless there is a contemporaneous record of what the crewman saw, then it would be difficult to convince anybody that a memory of a relatively fleeting incident 12 years ago is absolutely correct.
The Yachtsman has given 3 different accounts to 3 different inquiries over the years.
The question, surely, is why did the BOI not obtain the information.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
You have attempted to discredit the evidence of the yachtsman before. See our exchange on page 97. You weren't correct then, so I am not sure we should take your current claim at face value either.
What, precisely, is your point?
You have attempted to discredit the evidence of the yachtsman before. See our exchange on page 97. You weren't correct then, so I am not sure we should take your current claim at face value either.
What, precisely, is your point?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tamdemrotor
It was the Government response to the HOL Select Commitee which highlighted the discrepencies in the evidence given by the Yachtsman to the various inquiries.
My point is that BOTH persons on the Yacht should have been interviewed at the time of the BOI investigation.
It was the Government response to the HOL Select Commitee which highlighted the discrepencies in the evidence given by the Yachtsman to the various inquiries.
My point is that BOTH persons on the Yacht should have been interviewed at the time of the BOI investigation.
Last edited by cazatou; 27th Jun 2006 at 11:04.
Hesitate to interrupt the flow of esoteric argument about putative degrees of negligence, but thought y’all might be interested to hear the latest in the saga of one particular letter to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (that nice Mr Ingram, bless). Have to warn you - progress is microscopically small.
Anyroadup, the story so far - new readers begin here (others forgive) - I have said to Adam Ingram in a letter on 2 June “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?” Last week, not having had an acknowledgement, I phoned and spoke to someone in the Ministerial Correspondence Dept (ooher, Missus), who assured me that The Minister Himself had signed my reply on 20 June. It hadn’t arrived by yesterday, so I phoned again - and, surprise surprise, “there had been a database problem,” and my letter hadn’t been dealt with after all.
So, I hear you cry, what was this progress of which you speak? Well, I now have the direct dial phone number of this sad guy in Min Corr - and, believe me, when dealing with the Monastery, that’s a step forward of at least an inch or two, if not several cms.
Watch this space, but don’t hold your breath......
airsound
Anyroadup, the story so far - new readers begin here (others forgive) - I have said to Adam Ingram in a letter on 2 June “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?” Last week, not having had an acknowledgement, I phoned and spoke to someone in the Ministerial Correspondence Dept (ooher, Missus), who assured me that The Minister Himself had signed my reply on 20 June. It hadn’t arrived by yesterday, so I phoned again - and, surprise surprise, “there had been a database problem,” and my letter hadn’t been dealt with after all.
So, I hear you cry, what was this progress of which you speak? Well, I now have the direct dial phone number of this sad guy in Min Corr - and, believe me, when dealing with the Monastery, that’s a step forward of at least an inch or two, if not several cms.
Watch this space, but don’t hold your breath......
airsound
Just a numbered other
My point is that BOTH persons on the Yacht should have been interviewed at the time of the BOI investigation.
How is it that your own doubts about the conduct of the BoI don't translate into any doubt about its findings as modified by the reviewing officers?
You have doubts, we have doubts. Hardly proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, is it?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
It is, of course, for the BoI to establish which witnesses might have relevant and important evidence to give, and to decide which are the most important, or are likely to be the most reliable, witnesses. It is not incumbent on the Board to interview every potential witness, and they might reasonably limit their questioning to those who are thought to be the source of the "best" evidence. After that, apart from summarising what they saw or know which might be relevant, any witness can only respond to the questions put to them by the Board. Perhaps the Board felt that the crewman could, at best, only repeat what Mr Holbrooke had to say. That does not make them incompetent. However, Mr Holbrooke himself has made clear that his evidence to later inquiries was drawn out by questions which were not put by the original BoI. For the MoD to translate this into "he changed his evidence" is disingenuous in the extreme. Whether his evidence actually sheds any light on the cause(s) of the accident is another question entirely.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I think the crew might have been at least partially at fault, but I do not believe the evidence is, or ever has been, conclusive. On that basis alone, this verdict is unjust and should not stand.
Regards
Ginseng
I have said it before and I will say it again. I think the crew might have been at least partially at fault, but I do not believe the evidence is, or ever has been, conclusive. On that basis alone, this verdict is unjust and should not stand.
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ginseng
I agree with your first sentence - but that is precisely what the BOI did not do. From coasting out from NI to impact there were only 2 witnesses and they failed to establish the existance of one of them.
I agree with your first sentence - but that is precisely what the BOI did not do. From coasting out from NI to impact there were only 2 witnesses and they failed to establish the existance of one of them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark Royal,
It was OC RAF Odiham who first concluded that there had been a failure in the duty of care. The AOC and C in C agreed and concluded the failure amounted to Gross Negligence.
As they told the HOL Committee, negligence occurred at or before the waypoint change by which time the pilots had failed in their duty of care and airmanship by not having taken action to avoid the cloud covered cliff that they must have known was ahead.
Even if there was a subsequent transient and undiscovered technical failure that does not mean that the pilots negligence ceases to be a contributory cause of the crash. They had to be in no doubt whatsoever that negligence was a cause (not necessarily the sole cause) of the crash.
It was OC RAF Odiham who first concluded that there had been a failure in the duty of care. The AOC and C in C agreed and concluded the failure amounted to Gross Negligence.
As they told the HOL Committee, negligence occurred at or before the waypoint change by which time the pilots had failed in their duty of care and airmanship by not having taken action to avoid the cloud covered cliff that they must have known was ahead.
Even if there was a subsequent transient and undiscovered technical failure that does not mean that the pilots negligence ceases to be a contributory cause of the crash. They had to be in no doubt whatsoever that negligence was a cause (not necessarily the sole cause) of the crash.
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 Cazatou,
you wrote the following:
Surely if the Air Marshals have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, which by definition states that they know exactly what went on, they should be able to state at exactly what point (lat & long) the negligence occurred and what took place in the cockpit.
Simplistic, I readily accept, but my definition of the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever means that absolutely everything is known about the matter. For the record, that is also what Air Marshal Hine had in his mind when he wrote those very rules.
To say that something (not known for sure) happened somewhere around a certain area (but don't know exactly where) doesn't quite fit the bill, I'm afraid.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
you wrote the following:
As they told the HOL Committee, negligence occurred at or before the waypoint change
Simplistic, I readily accept, but my definition of the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever means that absolutely everything is known about the matter. For the record, that is also what Air Marshal Hine had in his mind when he wrote those very rules.
To say that something (not known for sure) happened somewhere around a certain area (but don't know exactly where) doesn't quite fit the bill, I'm afraid.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook