Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
This is the last time I will give you the opportunity to confirm the following:
You do not know whether or not the captain took breakfast
To categorically state, that he did not take breakfast. IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED FACTS
In order to support your assertion you would need to have seen information relating to the captains stomach contents.
When and where did you see this information?
Your insistence on blurring, 'absence of evidence' with 'evidence of absence', and your lack of relevant experience, speaks volumes of your level of understanding, and motivation regarding this case.
I find your intentionally malicious interpretation, of what is in any case a trivial detail, (see BOI report) utterly disgusting.
This is the last time I will give you the opportunity to confirm the following:
You do not know whether or not the captain took breakfast
To categorically state, that he did not take breakfast. IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED FACTS
In order to support your assertion you would need to have seen information relating to the captains stomach contents.
When and where did you see this information?
Your insistence on blurring, 'absence of evidence' with 'evidence of absence', and your lack of relevant experience, speaks volumes of your level of understanding, and motivation regarding this case.
I find your intentionally malicious interpretation, of what is in any case a trivial detail, (see BOI report) utterly disgusting.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz wrote:
Should we kneel, or merely kiss hands?
That said, we may be being unfair to our eel-like Caz. His failure, despite repeated polite requests, to state exactly what evidential facts point to gross negligence speaks volumes.
That he is reduced to hanging his hat on the absence of evidence that JT sat down to a full English breakfast = JT disregarded ASIs and didn't eat a breakfast speaks volumes for the thought processes pertaining at HQ 1 Gp at the time. To re-iterate, yet again. It is not for us to prove JT innocent, but for the heirarchy to prove him guilty.
HQ 1 Gp Mar 95 - Jan 96
That said, we may be being unfair to our eel-like Caz. His failure, despite repeated polite requests, to state exactly what evidential facts point to gross negligence speaks volumes.
That he is reduced to hanging his hat on the absence of evidence that JT sat down to a full English breakfast = JT disregarded ASIs and didn't eat a breakfast speaks volumes for the thought processes pertaining at HQ 1 Gp at the time. To re-iterate, yet again. It is not for us to prove JT innocent, but for the heirarchy to prove him guilty.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Originally Posted by cazatou
Shy Torque,
You appear to be suggesting that there is something underhand in my change of user name. It is really quite simple - if you change Internet Service Provider (as we had to do on moving to France) you need a new user name. Many contributors have had the same problem.
You appear to be suggesting that there is something underhand in my change of user name. It is really quite simple - if you change Internet Service Provider (as we had to do on moving to France) you need a new user name. Many contributors have had the same problem.
You do tend to miss out the main points and nit-pick irrelevancies to suit your own argument.
Any comment on the rest of my post? By your interpretation, was I therefore grossly negligent before I took off?
I now fly under a different set of rules, i.e. Civilian regulations. There is no reference to breakfast. Does this make the CAA institutionally guilty of gross negligence?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque
You are no longer operating under a Military Code of Discipline.
You are expected to comply with the accepted norms by your Company. Failure to do so will bring retribution not only your Employers but on your Estate & ultimately on your Family.
Your Employers have a right to expect that you will operate within the laid down Crew Duty and Weather limitations; that you will comply with minimum rest periods and also with the laid down requirements for Crew Meals - with particular reference to any known restriction on crew meals due to Religious or Medical requirements.
Your Employers will doubtless require (as will their insurers)that all laid down procedures have been followed from "Crew in" to the accident.
Comments?
You are no longer operating under a Military Code of Discipline.
You are expected to comply with the accepted norms by your Company. Failure to do so will bring retribution not only your Employers but on your Estate & ultimately on your Family.
Your Employers have a right to expect that you will operate within the laid down Crew Duty and Weather limitations; that you will comply with minimum rest periods and also with the laid down requirements for Crew Meals - with particular reference to any known restriction on crew meals due to Religious or Medical requirements.
Your Employers will doubtless require (as will their insurers)that all laid down procedures have been followed from "Crew in" to the accident.
Comments?
Only one - please stop wasting bandwidth with your futile nonsense about whether one of the pilots had breakfast.
In any case, what constitutes breakfast? To a Hunter pilot it was probably a cup of coffee and a cigarette; doubtless to a corgi carrier it was probably a full English served by a 4 star hotel flunky. To most people it's probably whatever they're normally accustomed to....
Do please drop this pointless connerie, ca-zizi-tou!
In any case, what constitutes breakfast? To a Hunter pilot it was probably a cup of coffee and a cigarette; doubtless to a corgi carrier it was probably a full English served by a 4 star hotel flunky. To most people it's probably whatever they're normally accustomed to....
Do please drop this pointless connerie, ca-zizi-tou!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I do not recall anyone asking for your input; but it matters not as you will, doubtless, treat us all to the expounding of your "experience" as you have done for many years.
Perhaps we should re-visit your contribution to the thread dealing with the death of a totally innocent Brazilian Gentleman.
I recall that you applauded that act as he was "obviously Guilty" having leapt the turnstiles in a "Puffa " jacket. The subsequent revelations that it was a Special Branch policeman who leapt the barrier in a "puffa"jacket and shot an innocent man did not draw any comment from you.
I do not recall anyone asking for your input; but it matters not as you will, doubtless, treat us all to the expounding of your "experience" as you have done for many years.
Perhaps we should re-visit your contribution to the thread dealing with the death of a totally innocent Brazilian Gentleman.
I recall that you applauded that act as he was "obviously Guilty" having leapt the turnstiles in a "Puffa " jacket. The subsequent revelations that it was a Special Branch policeman who leapt the barrier in a "puffa"jacket and shot an innocent man did not draw any comment from you.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Cazatou,
I am fully aware of all regulations that apply to myself. I can put your mind at rest - there is no reference to breakfast.
This is my last comment on the matter.
BTW, regarding your arrogant comment to Beagle. When did you become a moderator of the forum?
I am fully aware of all regulations that apply to myself. I can put your mind at rest - there is no reference to breakfast.
This is my last comment on the matter.
BTW, regarding your arrogant comment to Beagle. When did you become a moderator of the forum?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz....u live in france right. couldnt resist........oh & lets discuss the "innocent" brazilian, when the OFFICIAL report hasn`t yet been released(or do you know something i dont, let us wait and see what is going to happen to the officers concerned , cos the Brazilian MIGHT just NOT be as innocent as the media think.
Sorry for hijacking this thread...i must re focus on the issue
BTW I`ll delete the image in a few hours as its doin me eyes in
Sorry for hijacking this thread...i must re focus on the issue
BTW I`ll delete the image in a few hours as its doin me eyes in
Last edited by Colonal Mustard; 15th Jul 2006 at 20:32.
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
Meanwhile...... back at the Chinook Campaign.... 
BEagle,
Great news on getting another response from David Cameron. He hasn't even bothered to respond to my cople of letters! If you aim to write back, perhaps ask him how, when next in Government, he aims to achieve the removal of the verdict. Ask if he would be prepared to take that action now, whilst in opposition.
Air Pig,
good result from you too. Thank you. I'll check with Lord O'Neill and, perhaps, steer him her way!
Thank you all, as always for your continued support. There is a new chap, at the MoD, in the unfortunate position of having to deal with me. Phoned him up recently to enquire why it was taking over four months to respond to my request for documentation to which his reply was, "Well, we have been busy!". He promised a response within a week - still nothing.
I'm aware of the obligation under the Freedom of Information, but have always allowed a little bit of delay due to the information I have requested. Four months, however, is a little too much. Perhaps reading about it here, may push them along a bit.
There will be more news from the Campaign once I have received contact from the MoD.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
BEagle,
Great news on getting another response from David Cameron. He hasn't even bothered to respond to my cople of letters! If you aim to write back, perhaps ask him how, when next in Government, he aims to achieve the removal of the verdict. Ask if he would be prepared to take that action now, whilst in opposition.
Air Pig,
good result from you too. Thank you. I'll check with Lord O'Neill and, perhaps, steer him her way!
Thank you all, as always for your continued support. There is a new chap, at the MoD, in the unfortunate position of having to deal with me. Phoned him up recently to enquire why it was taking over four months to respond to my request for documentation to which his reply was, "Well, we have been busy!". He promised a response within a week - still nothing.
I'm aware of the obligation under the Freedom of Information, but have always allowed a little bit of delay due to the information I have requested. Four months, however, is a little too much. Perhaps reading about it here, may push them along a bit.
There will be more news from the Campaign once I have received contact from the MoD.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian, I think that too much pressure at this stage might antagonise DC, so it may be better to wait until nearer to the election and then remind him of his promise. Expecting him to do something before he is elected might play into the hands of the labour stooges in the ministry - which would be counter productive.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An appeal to your conscience.
Let us stand back and reflect for a moment.
Think of how you regard Britain’s values and institutions.
Compare this to how you regard, say, foreign totalitarian regimes.
Despite all the knocks to our sensibilities over recent years, think of the concepts and implications of long held principals like freedom of speech – for a moment, forget political correctness, fear of loss of reward or standing; put personal advantage and wellbeing behind the welfare of your nation – in a true free country, you should have nothing to fear by being loyal to truth and justice.
.
There should be nothing coming out of analysis of this crash 12 years on of any significance operationally that could jeopardise any present operations – any obstruction now could only be to cover some cock up at a higher level (or worse).
.
As things stand, these fine young officers are not only carrying the can for the loss of their aircraft but also for changing history, as the loss of the security team on board most certainly did. Their standing can hardly be worse. Furthermore, there is, as I have suggested so long and loud, a possibility that they were willfully misled – in which case they were effectively murdered along with their charges – how unjust would it be if this was the case? With all the circumstantial evidence fitting this scenario, bearing in mind the implications, is it not a worthy effort to examine this possibility fully? Why not be open now about the introduction of the system? Why not pressure for full disclosure of the captain’s meetings before the flight? Why not ask the ground crew straight about the nav racks? Etc, etc, etc.
.
Ask yourself if there is anything that you can contribute to establishing what happened that day – have the courage of your convictions.
.
As for the mantra of this thread only being aimed at clearing the pilots’ names on the basis of “absolutely no doubt” etc, while being quite right and reasonable, so often is used to drown debate in a style which would put Orwell’s sheep to shame - I think that there is a better chance of achieving this by getting to the whole truth.
Let us stand back and reflect for a moment.
Think of how you regard Britain’s values and institutions.
Compare this to how you regard, say, foreign totalitarian regimes.
Despite all the knocks to our sensibilities over recent years, think of the concepts and implications of long held principals like freedom of speech – for a moment, forget political correctness, fear of loss of reward or standing; put personal advantage and wellbeing behind the welfare of your nation – in a true free country, you should have nothing to fear by being loyal to truth and justice.
.
There should be nothing coming out of analysis of this crash 12 years on of any significance operationally that could jeopardise any present operations – any obstruction now could only be to cover some cock up at a higher level (or worse).
.
As things stand, these fine young officers are not only carrying the can for the loss of their aircraft but also for changing history, as the loss of the security team on board most certainly did. Their standing can hardly be worse. Furthermore, there is, as I have suggested so long and loud, a possibility that they were willfully misled – in which case they were effectively murdered along with their charges – how unjust would it be if this was the case? With all the circumstantial evidence fitting this scenario, bearing in mind the implications, is it not a worthy effort to examine this possibility fully? Why not be open now about the introduction of the system? Why not pressure for full disclosure of the captain’s meetings before the flight? Why not ask the ground crew straight about the nav racks? Etc, etc, etc.
.
Ask yourself if there is anything that you can contribute to establishing what happened that day – have the courage of your convictions.
.
As for the mantra of this thread only being aimed at clearing the pilots’ names on the basis of “absolutely no doubt” etc, while being quite right and reasonable, so often is used to drown debate in a style which would put Orwell’s sheep to shame - I think that there is a better chance of achieving this by getting to the whole truth.
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 Walter,
I hope all is well with you.
If it's simply a metter of getting disclosure from the MoD, why don't you write to them yourself? That way, you can ask the questions that are uppermost in your mind, rather that have the questions incorrectly phrased by someone writing on your behalf.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I hope all is well with you.
If it's simply a metter of getting disclosure from the MoD, why don't you write to them yourself? That way, you can ask the questions that are uppermost in your mind, rather that have the questions incorrectly phrased by someone writing on your behalf.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Brian
Have done so and will continue.
However, what is needed is input of specific details from personnel in a position to know so that this line can be either:
seen to be explored fully and closed off;
or show that something important has been ignored/ omitted in the official story – something that is unlikely to be had from official sources anyway - so opening things up.
Any “whistleblower” coming forward at the moment may anticipate a hard time which is why I made that last post reminding people of our values and strengths – at least they are unlikely to get the full David Kelly treatment at the moment!
.
Anyway, good luck with the campaign and my best wishes.
.
Walter
Have done so and will continue.
However, what is needed is input of specific details from personnel in a position to know so that this line can be either:
seen to be explored fully and closed off;
or show that something important has been ignored/ omitted in the official story – something that is unlikely to be had from official sources anyway - so opening things up.
Any “whistleblower” coming forward at the moment may anticipate a hard time which is why I made that last post reminding people of our values and strengths – at least they are unlikely to get the full David Kelly treatment at the moment!
.
Anyway, good luck with the campaign and my best wishes.
.
Walter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally,
I think, I may be wrong, but I am sure Brian was being very polite and diplomatic...................in case you had not spotted that
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
I think, I may be wrong, but I am sure Brian was being very polite and diplomatic...................in case you had not spotted that
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Walter said;
“However, what is needed is input of specific details from personnel in a position to know. Any “whistleblower” coming forward at the moment may anticipate a hard time which is why I made that last post reminding people of our values and strengths – at least they are unlikely to get the full David Kelly treatment at the moment!”
Taken in isolation, that is, lacking the more emotive theories (which one is entitled to but I personally don’t think there is mileage in), there is nothing wrong with Walter’s post. It harks back to a very simple, yet excellent post #376 by The AerosCo;
“Who, in these circumstances, exactly is the MoD? In particular, which entity within the MOD provides the necessary continuity over the years to allow the stock response to be trundled out time and time again? And who has the necessary influence/authority over that body to ensure that that stance is maintained?”
I don’t think this was ever answered, and one should certainly not name names on this forum. But I’m sure this point has exercised the minds of many of the leading lights in the campaign. I doubt if anyone here actually knows everyone involved in this (mis)information chain at any given time, never mind throughout the 12 years. Some of you know the RAF personnel, some those from Boscombe, others those in DPA/DLO. (Shortly to be one entity again which will give, for example, DPA staffs easier access to engineering records). Those at the lowest level (a relative term taking the MoD as a whole) do a difficult enough job without the added hassle of daily political pressure from above. And I mean “political” in the widest sense. This is the one area where Walter is wrong. They WILL, without doubt, get the full “Kelly treatment” if they so much as deviate one centimetre from the MoD party line. This “treatment” is actually a routine management tool. Do you seriously believe that the MoD’s “Mull team” do not see through the rubbish spouted in their name by their seniors? Do you not think they understand the practical aspects of the engineering and airworthiness deficiencies which so clearly undermine the MoD’s case?
I suspect there are some interesting debates whenever a PQ arrives which is too close for comfort. The natural temptation, based on professional pride (you do have pride, don’t you?), will be to draft a truthful response. Reality soon sets in because I imagine these staffs, who actually know what’s going on, are never allowed near those who have to sign the response to a Minister. But, there must be a middleman (or two) who deals with the gophers and the Gods. He will know the truth about the weaknesses in the MoD case, and the feeling on the shop floor, but will have had many a subtle briefing as to what is expected; and will know these “terms of reference” are wholly linked to his/her future career and financial wellbeing. This will have been flowed down. And there is NO WAY the MoD would appoint someone in this hierarchy whom they thought would rock the boat.
Walter is right about whistleblowers. In practice, the Act does not protect you; not least because you will find it difficult to get representation from your Union (for civvies) who are in Management’s pocket. Nor will colleagues or other witnesses come forward because they have seen what will happen to them. They will be encouraged to forget. But what I describe above is dangerous for management, especially given the FOI Act. What they said and did in the past, in their arrogance thinking themselves safe, is now open source. Also, there are a lot of people to keep sweet and eventually someone who knows will be treated so badly, so appallingly, they will react. I suspect that, somewhere, there is a very interesting diary waiting to be published. As time goes on, so those who know are ageing, retiring or dying. Beware the man who has nothing to lose!
“However, what is needed is input of specific details from personnel in a position to know. Any “whistleblower” coming forward at the moment may anticipate a hard time which is why I made that last post reminding people of our values and strengths – at least they are unlikely to get the full David Kelly treatment at the moment!”
Taken in isolation, that is, lacking the more emotive theories (which one is entitled to but I personally don’t think there is mileage in), there is nothing wrong with Walter’s post. It harks back to a very simple, yet excellent post #376 by The AerosCo;
“Who, in these circumstances, exactly is the MoD? In particular, which entity within the MOD provides the necessary continuity over the years to allow the stock response to be trundled out time and time again? And who has the necessary influence/authority over that body to ensure that that stance is maintained?”
I don’t think this was ever answered, and one should certainly not name names on this forum. But I’m sure this point has exercised the minds of many of the leading lights in the campaign. I doubt if anyone here actually knows everyone involved in this (mis)information chain at any given time, never mind throughout the 12 years. Some of you know the RAF personnel, some those from Boscombe, others those in DPA/DLO. (Shortly to be one entity again which will give, for example, DPA staffs easier access to engineering records). Those at the lowest level (a relative term taking the MoD as a whole) do a difficult enough job without the added hassle of daily political pressure from above. And I mean “political” in the widest sense. This is the one area where Walter is wrong. They WILL, without doubt, get the full “Kelly treatment” if they so much as deviate one centimetre from the MoD party line. This “treatment” is actually a routine management tool. Do you seriously believe that the MoD’s “Mull team” do not see through the rubbish spouted in their name by their seniors? Do you not think they understand the practical aspects of the engineering and airworthiness deficiencies which so clearly undermine the MoD’s case?
I suspect there are some interesting debates whenever a PQ arrives which is too close for comfort. The natural temptation, based on professional pride (you do have pride, don’t you?), will be to draft a truthful response. Reality soon sets in because I imagine these staffs, who actually know what’s going on, are never allowed near those who have to sign the response to a Minister. But, there must be a middleman (or two) who deals with the gophers and the Gods. He will know the truth about the weaknesses in the MoD case, and the feeling on the shop floor, but will have had many a subtle briefing as to what is expected; and will know these “terms of reference” are wholly linked to his/her future career and financial wellbeing. This will have been flowed down. And there is NO WAY the MoD would appoint someone in this hierarchy whom they thought would rock the boat.
Walter is right about whistleblowers. In practice, the Act does not protect you; not least because you will find it difficult to get representation from your Union (for civvies) who are in Management’s pocket. Nor will colleagues or other witnesses come forward because they have seen what will happen to them. They will be encouraged to forget. But what I describe above is dangerous for management, especially given the FOI Act. What they said and did in the past, in their arrogance thinking themselves safe, is now open source. Also, there are a lot of people to keep sweet and eventually someone who knows will be treated so badly, so appallingly, they will react. I suspect that, somewhere, there is a very interesting diary waiting to be published. As time goes on, so those who know are ageing, retiring or dying. Beware the man who has nothing to lose!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecumse, you wrote:
<<Also, there are a lot of people to keep sweet and eventually someone who knows will be treated so badly, so appallingly, they will react. I suspect that, somewhere, there is a very interesting diary waiting to be published. As time goes on, so those who know are ageing, retiring or dying. Beware the man who has nothing to lose!>>
.
To which I would like to add:
“ … or the serviceman so driven by conscience that he puts loyalty to truth and justice above loyalty to a service, however well it has personally served him in the past or how injurious to his personal well being and fortune an act of conscience may prove, when it is doing wrong to its members and the public which it is meant to serve, the latter’s interest surely taking precedence over the interest of that service itself and of that serviceman.”
In other words, someone with the sense of honour and self sacrifice and the balls to act sooner, rather than later, while it still matters.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
<<Also, there are a lot of people to keep sweet and eventually someone who knows will be treated so badly, so appallingly, they will react. I suspect that, somewhere, there is a very interesting diary waiting to be published. As time goes on, so those who know are ageing, retiring or dying. Beware the man who has nothing to lose!>>
.
To which I would like to add:
“ … or the serviceman so driven by conscience that he puts loyalty to truth and justice above loyalty to a service, however well it has personally served him in the past or how injurious to his personal well being and fortune an act of conscience may prove, when it is doing wrong to its members and the public which it is meant to serve, the latter’s interest surely taking precedence over the interest of that service itself and of that serviceman.”
In other words, someone with the sense of honour and self sacrifice and the balls to act sooner, rather than later, while it still matters.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Walter
While I agree, it is clear that the lack of response to my post indicates the understandable unease about the consequences of sticking your head above the parapet; serviceman or civilian. It is very difficult. Careers and families to think of, not to mention ones health, which would inevitably suffer. Unfortunately, the answers to many questions can only come from within the MoD - especially the ones you seek. There are only so many in the MoD who can answer the questions we pose (you'd be surprised at how few) so it is important to filter out theories that lead down rabbit holes or can easily be denied, and concentrate on areas where there are known MoD weaknesses.
The MoD themselves give guidance here. They constantly refer to the "legal, technical and airmanship" aspects of the case. In establishing this boundary, they offer more scope for challenge. I am not aircrew, so would not dare comment on airmanship. In simple terms, "legal" includes the various OBLIGATIONS MoD staffs are under, including independent scrutiny, Duty of Care and Health and Safety legislation. "Technical" includes airworthiness, equipment safety, MAR/CAR, release to service, and general maintenance of the build standard (all of them obligations). An isolated breach could be forgiven, but systematic breaches by people or Departments responsible for Chinooks (or helos in general, as much of the hierarchy is/was precisely the same people) would be damning evidence. The ZD576 papers point to such breaches.
It is not necessary to rise above the parapet or whistleblow on technical issues; various Parliamentary committees and the MoD themselves via FOI have acknowledged failings. In infinite detail. It is a case of collating this, placing it context regarding the Chinook fleet and exploiting it. Sounds simple, but when a Department of State does not seem answerable to the elected Government, ordinary people like us have little chance. But, you can tell when we get close – they mislead, lie, or simply don't respond. This is why you are right Walter, someone must know pertinent facts which would demolish the MoD’s case, and we must hope they come forward. But we don’t need improbable theories, it is sufficient to stick to the known facts. Force MoD to address searching questions - don't give them the opportunity to roll out the same old replies.
Glengarry, it’s a long time. I can’t imagine you don’t read this. Get in touch.
While I agree, it is clear that the lack of response to my post indicates the understandable unease about the consequences of sticking your head above the parapet; serviceman or civilian. It is very difficult. Careers and families to think of, not to mention ones health, which would inevitably suffer. Unfortunately, the answers to many questions can only come from within the MoD - especially the ones you seek. There are only so many in the MoD who can answer the questions we pose (you'd be surprised at how few) so it is important to filter out theories that lead down rabbit holes or can easily be denied, and concentrate on areas where there are known MoD weaknesses.
The MoD themselves give guidance here. They constantly refer to the "legal, technical and airmanship" aspects of the case. In establishing this boundary, they offer more scope for challenge. I am not aircrew, so would not dare comment on airmanship. In simple terms, "legal" includes the various OBLIGATIONS MoD staffs are under, including independent scrutiny, Duty of Care and Health and Safety legislation. "Technical" includes airworthiness, equipment safety, MAR/CAR, release to service, and general maintenance of the build standard (all of them obligations). An isolated breach could be forgiven, but systematic breaches by people or Departments responsible for Chinooks (or helos in general, as much of the hierarchy is/was precisely the same people) would be damning evidence. The ZD576 papers point to such breaches.
It is not necessary to rise above the parapet or whistleblow on technical issues; various Parliamentary committees and the MoD themselves via FOI have acknowledged failings. In infinite detail. It is a case of collating this, placing it context regarding the Chinook fleet and exploiting it. Sounds simple, but when a Department of State does not seem answerable to the elected Government, ordinary people like us have little chance. But, you can tell when we get close – they mislead, lie, or simply don't respond. This is why you are right Walter, someone must know pertinent facts which would demolish the MoD’s case, and we must hope they come forward. But we don’t need improbable theories, it is sufficient to stick to the known facts. Force MoD to address searching questions - don't give them the opportunity to roll out the same old replies.
Glengarry, it’s a long time. I can’t imagine you don’t read this. Get in touch.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief wally
Why will you never listen!!!
To which I would like to add:
“ … or the serviceman so driven by conscience that he puts loyalty to truth and justice above loyalty to a service, however well it has personally served him in the past or how injurious to his personal well being and fortune an act of conscience may prove, when it is doing wrong to its members and the public which it is meant to serve, the latter’s interest surely taking precedence over the interest of that service itself and of that serviceman.”
In other words, someone with the sense of honour and self sacrifice and the balls to act sooner, rather than later, while it still matters.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
I am not sure if you are currently serving, but if you are do seriously belive that in the current climate of Bliars reign every single SAC, JT, CPL, SGT, C/T, FS, WO and Junior Officer directly or indirectly involved with the technical prep of this aircraft are ALL remianing silent out of LOYALTY to our present Govt. The average serving airman is so dissilusioned with continual cutbacks, detatchments, equipment deficiencies etc etc that there is NO WAY someone would not have come forward by now and added substance to your claims, and as noone has do you not think it's time to put your ludicrous claims to bed.
I SERIOUSLY believe you need to seek some specialist help to get you over your current conspiracy theory because you seem blindly unable to see the wood from the trees.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Why will you never listen!!!To which I would like to add:
“ … or the serviceman so driven by conscience that he puts loyalty to truth and justice above loyalty to a service, however well it has personally served him in the past or how injurious to his personal well being and fortune an act of conscience may prove, when it is doing wrong to its members and the public which it is meant to serve, the latter’s interest surely taking precedence over the interest of that service itself and of that serviceman.”
In other words, someone with the sense of honour and self sacrifice and the balls to act sooner, rather than later, while it still matters.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
I am not sure if you are currently serving, but if you are do seriously belive that in the current climate of Bliars reign every single SAC, JT, CPL, SGT, C/T, FS, WO and Junior Officer directly or indirectly involved with the technical prep of this aircraft are ALL remianing silent out of LOYALTY to our present Govt. The average serving airman is so dissilusioned with continual cutbacks, detatchments, equipment deficiencies etc etc that there is NO WAY someone would not have come forward by now and added substance to your claims, and as noone has do you not think it's time to put your ludicrous claims to bed.
I SERIOUSLY believe you need to seek some specialist help to get you over your current conspiracy theory because you seem blindly unable to see the wood from the trees.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced