Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Unfortunately, cazatou persists in trying to apply his personal brand of fixed wing "logic" to the situation and still cannot differentiate between fact and supposition or opinion.
He appears to be absolutely determined to find any reason he can to appease his mindset and has persisted in this approach for some time. He does rather appear to be clutching at straws in this instance.
I have been flying for a living for thirty years or so, a high proportion of it as an RAF SH captain and A2QHI; some of it in the NI theatre (including a particular type of night special ops) and a mix of single pilot / multi pilot ops. I was also a fixed wing QFI. However, I can't recall many occasions where I had a nice cosy little breakfast with my co-pilot. I don't think my wife would have appreciated it. In fact, I never have been one for taking early breakfast. I would often snack on something at the squadron a little later. Many other SH crew did similar, as ABIW has pointed out. I don't think this made me or anyone else negligent and certainly not grossly negligent.
The question regarding both pilots visiting the met office to brief together is completely spurious - how can this be construed as gross negligence? Much of my SH time was flown single pilot. I ensured I was briefed and I passed on any relevant information to the rest of the crew. There was no fundamental difference in this case.
He appears to be absolutely determined to find any reason he can to appease his mindset and has persisted in this approach for some time. He does rather appear to be clutching at straws in this instance.
I have been flying for a living for thirty years or so, a high proportion of it as an RAF SH captain and A2QHI; some of it in the NI theatre (including a particular type of night special ops) and a mix of single pilot / multi pilot ops. I was also a fixed wing QFI. However, I can't recall many occasions where I had a nice cosy little breakfast with my co-pilot. I don't think my wife would have appreciated it. In fact, I never have been one for taking early breakfast. I would often snack on something at the squadron a little later. Many other SH crew did similar, as ABIW has pointed out. I don't think this made me or anyone else negligent and certainly not grossly negligent.
The question regarding both pilots visiting the met office to brief together is completely spurious - how can this be construed as gross negligence? Much of my SH time was flown single pilot. I ensured I was briefed and I passed on any relevant information to the rest of the crew. There was no fundamental difference in this case.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an accident in which many fine people lost their lives. It does no justice to the memory of any of them to see abuse, invective and accusations hurled backwards and forwards. I ask that we heave this thread back on topic. It is so sad to see it drag interminably on in the same ruts, with no real progress.
If I understand Brian Dixon correctly (and apologies Brian if I do not) he is not INSISTING that the pilots were not negligent. He is not saying he has incontrovertable proof of this.
The whole point of this thread WAS to try and establish whether there were unarguable grounds to support a finding of gross negligence from the evidence available. That was the requirement for such a finding to be made by a BOI. If there were not, then the campaign asked for the findings to be overturned. This thread has fruitlessly strayed a long way from that objective.
What we know is that the pilots, for some UNKNOWN reason, turned slightly away from their intended track, climbing, and impacted with a hill in cloud. All we have so far is arguments about speeds/visibilty/fitness for flight/strange avionics and other things, but no EVIDENCE. Rather than battle backwards and forwards about breakfasts, avionic fits, duty times, serviceability etc, hurling insults about, would it not be better to ask all those who are arguing that the crew were GROSSLY negligent to post here the exact reasons why they KNOW this - ie what is your actual evidence of negligence? This after all is what Brian's campaign is all about. Not what enables you to surmise that they were grossly negligent, or what you THINK they were doing, but what are your hard facts? The posts can and should be short and precise. State what your facts are and where they come from. I recommend considering placing all those 'combatants' who do not post in this way on your 'ignore' list, and then with a slimmed down view we can perhaps focus on trying to get the matter properly reviewed rather than trying to get the cause of the accident established on PPRune - which is an unlikely prospect.
If I understand Brian Dixon correctly (and apologies Brian if I do not) he is not INSISTING that the pilots were not negligent. He is not saying he has incontrovertable proof of this.
The whole point of this thread WAS to try and establish whether there were unarguable grounds to support a finding of gross negligence from the evidence available. That was the requirement for such a finding to be made by a BOI. If there were not, then the campaign asked for the findings to be overturned. This thread has fruitlessly strayed a long way from that objective.
What we know is that the pilots, for some UNKNOWN reason, turned slightly away from their intended track, climbing, and impacted with a hill in cloud. All we have so far is arguments about speeds/visibilty/fitness for flight/strange avionics and other things, but no EVIDENCE. Rather than battle backwards and forwards about breakfasts, avionic fits, duty times, serviceability etc, hurling insults about, would it not be better to ask all those who are arguing that the crew were GROSSLY negligent to post here the exact reasons why they KNOW this - ie what is your actual evidence of negligence? This after all is what Brian's campaign is all about. Not what enables you to surmise that they were grossly negligent, or what you THINK they were doing, but what are your hard facts? The posts can and should be short and precise. State what your facts are and where they come from. I recommend considering placing all those 'combatants' who do not post in this way on your 'ignore' list, and then with a slimmed down view we can perhaps focus on trying to get the matter properly reviewed rather than trying to get the cause of the accident established on PPRune - which is an unlikely prospect.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
I feel sure I have said this before, however, as far as breakfast is concerned, might you be taking absence of evidence, as evidence of absence?
There is a, not very subtle, difference don't you know!!
Might you be guilty of the same basic error in other areas too?
In any event, it was of course considered, and dismissed by the BOI.
I feel sure I have said this before, however, as far as breakfast is concerned, might you be taking absence of evidence, as evidence of absence?
There is a, not very subtle, difference don't you know!!
Might you be guilty of the same basic error in other areas too?
In any event, it was of course considered, and dismissed by the BOI.
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
BOAC,
many thanks for your post. Embarrasingly, I concede that I too, have allowed the thread to stray - but purely in the best interest of refuting those recent posts.
No apologies needed as you are absolutely correct. This whole campaign is about satisfying the burden of proof in place at the time of the accident, that proof being Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever. I am on record as saying that the pilots may well have been negligent, but we will never know, and the MoD cannot prove as such, with absolute certainty.
Clearly the only honourable conclusion should be "Cause not positively determined".
There is no one alive who knows exactly what took place in those final few moments of that tragic flight. This thread is, itself, proof that more than one outcome may be drawn from the scant reliable evidence available, and the fact that each of us argues our point just as passionately further proves that.
The sooner the MoD accept that their verdict is unreliable and undermined, and so remove it from the pilot's records, the sooner we can all pack up and go home!
I thank you for getting all of us back on track.
Kind regards to all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
many thanks for your post. Embarrasingly, I concede that I too, have allowed the thread to stray - but purely in the best interest of refuting those recent posts.
No apologies needed as you are absolutely correct. This whole campaign is about satisfying the burden of proof in place at the time of the accident, that proof being Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever. I am on record as saying that the pilots may well have been negligent, but we will never know, and the MoD cannot prove as such, with absolute certainty.
Clearly the only honourable conclusion should be "Cause not positively determined".
There is no one alive who knows exactly what took place in those final few moments of that tragic flight. This thread is, itself, proof that more than one outcome may be drawn from the scant reliable evidence available, and the fact that each of us argues our point just as passionately further proves that.
The sooner the MoD accept that their verdict is unreliable and undermined, and so remove it from the pilot's records, the sooner we can all pack up and go home!
I thank you for getting all of us back on track.
Kind regards to all, as always.
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
Shy Torque,
Obviously you either did not read the ASI before signing as "having read": or you did not see the need, having read it, to comply with it and therefore ignored it.
It was, as I recall, quite specific and was issued as a result of several early morning accidents where low blood sugar levels where deemed to have played a part.
Fixed wing Stations made major changes to comply with the new regulations; but I should have realised that SH crews are made of sterner stuff and that such namby-pamby ideas do not apply to them.
Of course, precisely where you stand when someone (who has not demonstrably complied with the rules) is involved in an accident is another matter: especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
Obviously you either did not read the ASI before signing as "having read": or you did not see the need, having read it, to comply with it and therefore ignored it.
It was, as I recall, quite specific and was issued as a result of several early morning accidents where low blood sugar levels where deemed to have played a part.
Fixed wing Stations made major changes to comply with the new regulations; but I should have realised that SH crews are made of sterner stuff and that such namby-pamby ideas do not apply to them.
Of course, precisely where you stand when someone (who has not demonstrably complied with the rules) is involved in an accident is another matter: especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
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
especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
For what it may be worth, the handling pilot, Rick Cook, was seen to have taken breakfast.
(Posted with apologies to BOAC).
Regards, as always.
Brian
Ah well, Brian, no problems, just a few more 'ignores'
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
No it was not a PAYD system. That is a fact (I was living in the mess at the time).
You have already accepted that no-one knows whether Jon had breakfast or not, therefore your latest straw is not worth clutching at as a FACT cannot be established either way.
Why not take BOACs advice and just post those EVIDENTIAL FACTS from which you can incontrovertibly attribute gross negligence?
No it was not a PAYD system. That is a fact (I was living in the mess at the time).
You have already accepted that no-one knows whether Jon had breakfast or not, therefore your latest straw is not worth clutching at as a FACT cannot be established either way.
Why not take BOACs advice and just post those EVIDENTIAL FACTS from which you can incontrovertibly attribute gross negligence?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne,
Thanks for the "advice" - but I have been "involved" since approx 1910A 2 Jun 94 when, as I walked through my front door, the phone began to ring. I got to bed at approx 0200A and left for work at 0500A 3 Jun so that I could brief the Crews who would check in at 0630A to find their schedules had been completely changed.
I also got to fly some of the Army Widows to their Husband's Funerals.
Thanks for the "advice" - but I have been "involved" since approx 1910A 2 Jun 94 when, as I walked through my front door, the phone began to ring. I got to bed at approx 0200A and left for work at 0500A 3 Jun so that I could brief the Crews who would check in at 0630A to find their schedules had been completely changed.
I also got to fly some of the Army Widows to their Husband's Funerals.
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
Caz, no-one in the know has taken the bait on your post, but I can add a bit to this one. The crew ate choccie bars while they went through FADEC emergency drills in the crew room. Do ASIs quote what constitutes a breakfast?
Of more interest is your quote about Jon visiting the met office alone. My memory fades, but what met office was this?? At Aldergrove we used a met print out and a telephone if we needed more information. One person made the call, why would different people ring the met man to ask the same questions?? We didnt have the luxury of a met office close to us, maybe he went civvie side, very unusual.
You belittle SH operators by lampooning and calling them Mamby Pamby without knowing how we do business. There was no such thing as a morning met brief because your crew duty day started 1 hour before take off. If you started at 4 in the afternoon, how do you get breakfast at half three?? Easy, we kept the crewroom stocked with aircrew rations and ate when we got to work. We worked to the rules and limitations but they often worked against us because they were written for bases with superior facilities. I am amazed just how you know that he didnt eat, you are a god.....
What relevance does flying people to funerals have? I flew the PM to a meeting once but it had nothing to do with me why he went....
Of more interest is your quote about Jon visiting the met office alone. My memory fades, but what met office was this?? At Aldergrove we used a met print out and a telephone if we needed more information. One person made the call, why would different people ring the met man to ask the same questions?? We didnt have the luxury of a met office close to us, maybe he went civvie side, very unusual.
You belittle SH operators by lampooning and calling them Mamby Pamby without knowing how we do business. There was no such thing as a morning met brief because your crew duty day started 1 hour before take off. If you started at 4 in the afternoon, how do you get breakfast at half three?? Easy, we kept the crewroom stocked with aircrew rations and ate when we got to work. We worked to the rules and limitations but they often worked against us because they were written for bases with superior facilities. I am amazed just how you know that he didnt eat, you are a god.....
What relevance does flying people to funerals have? I flew the PM to a meeting once but it had nothing to do with me why he went....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
Withdraw that allegation now.
It is a claim that IS NOT BASED IN FACT
You have overstepped the mark.
especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
It is a claim that IS NOT BASED IN FACT
You have overstepped the mark.
Breakfast?
Grow up people, this case has continued because the man in the front crashed. He also took lots of "important" people to there graves.
Shackleton crash Isle of Harris 1990 - Did they eat breakfast? Doubt the BOI asked.
Lots of Jaguars / Harriers / Hunters / name your own aircraft have also come to grief low level and other than "Was he in the bar getting wasted" the night before the subject of food was not raised. Was he rested is another question.
I support what your doing Brian but lots of other people have died under similar circumstances, yes the software was wrong on that chopper, but lots of other people have died because of design faults. Original Jaguar NAVWASS? How many people did that kill.
A lot of those people would be turning in there grave at the fuss given to this crash, but i think its only happening because of the poor way the BOI dealt with it.
There can be little doubt the crew IMHO had "pressonitis" and got got caught out.
If the chopper was as broken as is claimed why take it? Were in the UK, noone gets shot for refusing to fly.
Reasonable doubt? Don't think so.
BOI report, the original one, written in simple phrases and lots of sorrow, and there would be no campaign.
Justice has no expiry date, but that crew screwed up - live with it.
Grow up people, this case has continued because the man in the front crashed. He also took lots of "important" people to there graves.
Shackleton crash Isle of Harris 1990 - Did they eat breakfast? Doubt the BOI asked.
Lots of Jaguars / Harriers / Hunters / name your own aircraft have also come to grief low level and other than "Was he in the bar getting wasted" the night before the subject of food was not raised. Was he rested is another question.
I support what your doing Brian but lots of other people have died under similar circumstances, yes the software was wrong on that chopper, but lots of other people have died because of design faults. Original Jaguar NAVWASS? How many people did that kill.
A lot of those people would be turning in there grave at the fuss given to this crash, but i think its only happening because of the poor way the BOI dealt with it.
There can be little doubt the crew IMHO had "pressonitis" and got got caught out.
If the chopper was as broken as is claimed why take it? Were in the UK, noone gets shot for refusing to fly.
Reasonable doubt? Don't think so.
BOI report, the original one, written in simple phrases and lots of sorrow, and there would be no campaign.
Justice has no expiry date, but that crew screwed up - live with it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest we stop this latest round of speculation and concentrate on the aim of this thread.
We are not going to discover the cause(s) of this accident.
We should continue to badger our MPs, the national media and anyone else who could help with the campaign.
We are not going to discover the cause(s) of this accident.
We should continue to badger our MPs, the national media and anyone else who could help with the campaign.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Originally Posted by cazatou
Shy Torque,
Obviously you either did not read the ASI before signing as "having read": or you did not see the need, having read it, to comply with it and therefore ignored it.
It was, as I recall, quite specific and was issued as a result of several early morning accidents where low blood sugar levels where deemed to have played a part.
Fixed wing Stations made major changes to comply with the new regulations; but I should have realised that SH crews are made of sterner stuff and that such namby-pamby ideas do not apply to them.
Of course, precisely where you stand when someone (who has not demonstrably complied with the rules) is involved in an accident is another matter: especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
Obviously you either did not read the ASI before signing as "having read": or you did not see the need, having read it, to comply with it and therefore ignored it.
It was, as I recall, quite specific and was issued as a result of several early morning accidents where low blood sugar levels where deemed to have played a part.
Fixed wing Stations made major changes to comply with the new regulations; but I should have realised that SH crews are made of sterner stuff and that such namby-pamby ideas do not apply to them.
Of course, precisely where you stand when someone (who has not demonstrably complied with the rules) is involved in an accident is another matter: especially when that person is the only crew member NOT to have complied.
I have been flying over thirty years. I still don't often get chance to take breakfast before the first flight of the day, often because the vagaries of my job mean it's not practical. I'm still here so my blood sugar must be OK, probably because I often don't eat dinner till 2100 the previous evening.
BTW, what's your definition of breakfast? I used to work permanent nights in NI. How did you get breakfast when the mess was shut for the dawn patrol, or wasnt that a problem for the shiny trouser fleet?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque,
In-Flight Catering were tasked to provide it!!
Please do not tell me that In Flight at Aldergrove could not provide - I did 300+ VIP Flights into/out of Aldergrove so I have a fair idea of the capabilities of In-Flight there; even in the early hours of the morning, as used to happen in the days of a Labour Government with a majority of 1 when all hands were needed in the Voting Lobby.
In-Flight Catering were tasked to provide it!!
Please do not tell me that In Flight at Aldergrove could not provide - I did 300+ VIP Flights into/out of Aldergrove so I have a fair idea of the capabilities of In-Flight there; even in the early hours of the morning, as used to happen in the days of a Labour Government with a majority of 1 when all hands were needed in the Voting Lobby.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley
When you wrote “ - I have never seen such a biased outcome as this - ” (p 2393) you hit the nail on the head – I am sure that most here would agree with your sentiment.
May I suggest a possible reason for their bias and harsh verdict:
At the time, any rumour of possible foul play had to be nipped in the bud or public unrest could have flared up in NI and the peace process (on which there had been so much work done in secret) wrecked – this could have been a valid consideration whether sabotage had actually occurred or not.
Politically, a conclusion had to be arrived at positively, firmly, and confidently for the benefit of the public - and this left two options for blame: the aircraft or the crew.
The former could have grounded a much needed a/c in the absence of any clear evidence of direct cause – it just had to be the crew, the harshness of the verdict persuading the general public that there was no doubt in the authorities view that it was pilot error, so quashing further speculation.
.
There is an up side to this concept – after 12 years of the peace process and economic developmental changes the likelihood that opening up the issue officially would incite a significant public reaction is probably nil and so the political bias for that unjust verdict should be weakening and so the group eventually may be successful in clearing their names.
.
Conversely, the passage of time renders the actual cause moot.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
When you wrote “ - I have never seen such a biased outcome as this - ” (p 2393) you hit the nail on the head – I am sure that most here would agree with your sentiment.
May I suggest a possible reason for their bias and harsh verdict:
At the time, any rumour of possible foul play had to be nipped in the bud or public unrest could have flared up in NI and the peace process (on which there had been so much work done in secret) wrecked – this could have been a valid consideration whether sabotage had actually occurred or not.
Politically, a conclusion had to be arrived at positively, firmly, and confidently for the benefit of the public - and this left two options for blame: the aircraft or the crew.
The former could have grounded a much needed a/c in the absence of any clear evidence of direct cause – it just had to be the crew, the harshness of the verdict persuading the general public that there was no doubt in the authorities view that it was pilot error, so quashing further speculation.
.
There is an up side to this concept – after 12 years of the peace process and economic developmental changes the likelihood that opening up the issue officially would incite a significant public reaction is probably nil and so the political bias for that unjust verdict should be weakening and so the group eventually may be successful in clearing their names.
.
Conversely, the passage of time renders the actual cause moot.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Had a most interesting reply from the PM-in-waiting, David Cameron today:
Dear (BEagle)
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Your sincerely,
David Cameron
Dear (BEagle)
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Your sincerely,
David Cameron
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
That is one of the best things I have heard on this subject in a long time.
Interesting also, that he chooses the Lords Select Committee's view to support his own. Having attended that hearing I walked from there full of hope. Later however, I was furious that it made not one iota of difference to the buffoons who just would not take matter on board.
Roll on the election.