Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
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
I also recall that when the vote was taken in the House of Lords, to decide whether or not to have a Select Committee, two of those eventually forming the Committee actually voted against the proposal. Of the remaining three members, two were for and one did not vote.
If anyone would like me to dig the names out, I'd be happy to do so.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
If anyone would like me to dig the names out, I'd be happy to do so.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB and BD
Thank you once again. Your postings are, as always, impeccable.
I congratulate cazatou (K52) in drawing further attention to this important facet of the case, so that 'undecideds' may reach a more informed opinion.
Thank you all.
Thank you once again. Your postings are, as always, impeccable.
I congratulate cazatou (K52) in drawing further attention to this important facet of the case, so that 'undecideds' may reach a more informed opinion.
Thank you all.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley
<<In "Ext" position, Doppler reversion should be selected to minimise navigational errors during GPS outages.>>
Are you saying that the SuperTANS would have to have been in a particular configuration to have been “blending” GPS and Doppler that day? My understanding was that this was done automatically in the SuperTANS, such that Doppler was dominant in the filters such that, say, a temporary GPS outage did not require action by the pilot – as opposed to earlier TANS when the data was available separately. If what you say was the case, was the system selected appropriately for Doppler?
.
The rest of your technical description seems to distract from the fundamental limitation I described of the system when over water – are you trying to blind the reader with science?
.
Whatever, you wrote:
<<I am not sure what relevance the navigation errors of the SuperTANS might have had on a VFR flight where it would appear that the crew had changed waypoints based on visual identification …>>
I thought I had explained the relevance clearly enough in the paragraph “ The relevance of the SuperTANS in this incident is that had it been in contradiction with another reference, the SuperTANS would have been thought to be in error and therefore could be ignored … “ of my posting # 2645 - basically, the crew were aware of its potential inaccuracy over water and would not have been alarmed if it disagreed by ˝ a mile or more with another, more trusted reference – they would not have worried about the discrepancy.
However, had they no other reference, and were using only the SuperTANS to keep them away from the Mull, then they should (and I say would) have added a safety factor (of at least ˝ a mile) and started their turn earlier than the SuperTANS directed.
.
Their action of effectively disregarding the SuperTANS by changing to the next waypoint suggests that they had either a clear visual reference or they were referring to another system.
.
As it happens, the SuperTANS was found to have been accurate near the crash site and so any visual reference they had should have reinforced the SuperTANS position and they should have started their turn as directed by it.
Confusion between the fog station and the lighthouse has been suggested but, if you refer to a map, at their angle of approach the fog station would have come up sooner and it was so little off track (to the lighthouse) that the deviation should not have been significant.
Sighting either of these structures should have served them well and it is hard to envisage that if they could not make out either of them clearly then they could have had any other physical feature clear enough to go by.
Thus I believe that they were not using a clear visual reference.
.
This only leaves another electronic system as a reference – they did not have radar. John Blakeley, you appear as a man with quite some technical background in avionics – what do you suggest could have misled them as to their distance to go that they would have trusted? Whatever other systems were there available at the time? Don’t worry as to whether they were actually fitted – just what could hypothetically have been used. Then we can discuss them and dismiss them from position of knowledge. Come on – just for interest – be the devil’s advocate – lets brainstorm all known applicable systems. I challenge you.
<<In "Ext" position, Doppler reversion should be selected to minimise navigational errors during GPS outages.>>
Are you saying that the SuperTANS would have to have been in a particular configuration to have been “blending” GPS and Doppler that day? My understanding was that this was done automatically in the SuperTANS, such that Doppler was dominant in the filters such that, say, a temporary GPS outage did not require action by the pilot – as opposed to earlier TANS when the data was available separately. If what you say was the case, was the system selected appropriately for Doppler?
.
The rest of your technical description seems to distract from the fundamental limitation I described of the system when over water – are you trying to blind the reader with science?
.
Whatever, you wrote:
<<I am not sure what relevance the navigation errors of the SuperTANS might have had on a VFR flight where it would appear that the crew had changed waypoints based on visual identification …>>
I thought I had explained the relevance clearly enough in the paragraph “ The relevance of the SuperTANS in this incident is that had it been in contradiction with another reference, the SuperTANS would have been thought to be in error and therefore could be ignored … “ of my posting # 2645 - basically, the crew were aware of its potential inaccuracy over water and would not have been alarmed if it disagreed by ˝ a mile or more with another, more trusted reference – they would not have worried about the discrepancy.
However, had they no other reference, and were using only the SuperTANS to keep them away from the Mull, then they should (and I say would) have added a safety factor (of at least ˝ a mile) and started their turn earlier than the SuperTANS directed.
.
Their action of effectively disregarding the SuperTANS by changing to the next waypoint suggests that they had either a clear visual reference or they were referring to another system.
.
As it happens, the SuperTANS was found to have been accurate near the crash site and so any visual reference they had should have reinforced the SuperTANS position and they should have started their turn as directed by it.
Confusion between the fog station and the lighthouse has been suggested but, if you refer to a map, at their angle of approach the fog station would have come up sooner and it was so little off track (to the lighthouse) that the deviation should not have been significant.
Sighting either of these structures should have served them well and it is hard to envisage that if they could not make out either of them clearly then they could have had any other physical feature clear enough to go by.
Thus I believe that they were not using a clear visual reference.
.
This only leaves another electronic system as a reference – they did not have radar. John Blakeley, you appear as a man with quite some technical background in avionics – what do you suggest could have misled them as to their distance to go that they would have trusted? Whatever other systems were there available at the time? Don’t worry as to whether they were actually fitted – just what could hypothetically have been used. Then we can discuss them and dismiss them from position of knowledge. Come on – just for interest – be the devil’s advocate – lets brainstorm all known applicable systems. I challenge you.
Walter, stick to the facts and the topic. Lets remember that brave souls died in this tragic accident. This is a forum for sensible dicussion not challenges to discuss irrelevant subjects.
If the aircraft did not have a particular piece of kit, it can have no relevance to the case, so no point in discussing it.
If you do not agree with this, then please find another forum to annoy.
If the aircraft did not have a particular piece of kit, it can have no relevance to the case, so no point in discussing it.
If you do not agree with this, then please find another forum to annoy.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick to the Point of the Thread
Walter,
Having, I hope, been one of the people trying to keep this thread on course I am certainly not going to reply in kind to your last post except to say:
The words I used in italics were all taken word for word from the reports I identified - the words from the Racal report were not in italics because I had added some explanatory comments. Nobody is trying to blind anyone with science except perhaps yourself - if you think these authortities have got it wrong feel free to write to them.
I have already told you by PM that a full check of the RTS we had at the time shows no evidence of the fit, or intention(at that time), to fit the AN ARS 6 CSAR system to the Chinook - I would not know if it was fitted later, but it does not look like it - at least up to the late 90s. To humour you I have now wasted a couple of hours that I should be spending with my grand-children to look at the latest documents we have received on the Interim and later full CA Release and associated Service Deviations. These go to AL 8 to Issue 1 of the CA RTS (dated Sep 1998) and SD 19/94 (dated Sep 1994) and they give no mention of your "special" fit equipment. As there is a full explanation of the AN-ARS 6 system on the web I assume it is not classified equipment.
If you want to go further I strongly recommend you take up ZH 785's suggestion.
JB
Having, I hope, been one of the people trying to keep this thread on course I am certainly not going to reply in kind to your last post except to say:
The words I used in italics were all taken word for word from the reports I identified - the words from the Racal report were not in italics because I had added some explanatory comments. Nobody is trying to blind anyone with science except perhaps yourself - if you think these authortities have got it wrong feel free to write to them.
I have already told you by PM that a full check of the RTS we had at the time shows no evidence of the fit, or intention(at that time), to fit the AN ARS 6 CSAR system to the Chinook - I would not know if it was fitted later, but it does not look like it - at least up to the late 90s. To humour you I have now wasted a couple of hours that I should be spending with my grand-children to look at the latest documents we have received on the Interim and later full CA Release and associated Service Deviations. These go to AL 8 to Issue 1 of the CA RTS (dated Sep 1998) and SD 19/94 (dated Sep 1994) and they give no mention of your "special" fit equipment. As there is a full explanation of the AN-ARS 6 system on the web I assume it is not classified equipment.
If you want to go further I strongly recommend you take up ZH 785's suggestion.
JB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see from your responses (I can't read his posts anymore!) that WK is up to his old tricks again.
Can I urge you all to add WK to your ignore list. (That way you can't read what he posts!) He simply does not respond to your urgings to start another thread. He has too much fun winding you guys up with his puerile nonsense.
NOTHING gets through to him! He will stay as long as he gets a response.
It's up to you.
Can I urge you all to add WK to your ignore list. (That way you can't read what he posts!) He simply does not respond to your urgings to start another thread. He has too much fun winding you guys up with his puerile nonsense.
NOTHING gets through to him! He will stay as long as he gets a response.
It's up to you.
Ark Royal
You have hit the nail on the head - we do not have to prove innocence MOD has to prove guilt and so far they have failed to do so. This verdict was based on a cabal of Air Marshals taking a decision with no chance for any discussion of the alternatives or any defence - that would not normally be the basis for proving guilt except it seems for MOD! The evidence available that we can use to establish innocence (by proving that there must be massive doubts about guilt) is exactly the same as MOD is using to claim to have "proven" guilt - but as they and we know the only established fact is that "nobody knows", and they never will. Even the SRO makes this point. Would anyone on this site make a finding equivalent to culpable homicide based on that?
The guilty verdict does not withstand the test of legal opinion from the FAI through the Juridical Review to the HofL, but clearly it must be compatible with the ethical standards of justice used by MOD, but then so are lots of other things that others might not accept - it was not MOD "compassion" that caused MOD to offer WW1 pardons last week - it was losing in Court!
JB
You have hit the nail on the head - we do not have to prove innocence MOD has to prove guilt and so far they have failed to do so. This verdict was based on a cabal of Air Marshals taking a decision with no chance for any discussion of the alternatives or any defence - that would not normally be the basis for proving guilt except it seems for MOD! The evidence available that we can use to establish innocence (by proving that there must be massive doubts about guilt) is exactly the same as MOD is using to claim to have "proven" guilt - but as they and we know the only established fact is that "nobody knows", and they never will. Even the SRO makes this point. Would anyone on this site make a finding equivalent to culpable homicide based on that?
The guilty verdict does not withstand the test of legal opinion from the FAI through the Juridical Review to the HofL, but clearly it must be compatible with the ethical standards of justice used by MOD, but then so are lots of other things that others might not accept - it was not MOD "compassion" that caused MOD to offer WW1 pardons last week - it was losing in Court!
JB
Last edited by Chugalug2; 16th Sep 2006 at 22:42. Reason: wrong number of posts!
Hi All, most remiss of me but I have been away for some while now. I return to find that .... little has changed with this sad, sad, topic.
As an Aviator and Engineer, I claim no detailed knowledge of this sorry accident – to claim to do so would be crass. However, the last time I posted on this Thread I opined that the two pilots involved were innocent due to the fact that, as it appeared to me then, and still does today, we simply do not know what happened that sad day. Fortunately, someone far more erudite than I stated:
“Twenty-nine people died. Every reasonable person thinks to himself that there must be an explanation—either people were negligent or there was aircraft failure or a mixture of the two. We search for a conclusion. However, to the inquiring, objective mind, a doubting investigation and a willingness to indulge in scrutiny ensures a fair result. Such an approach may mean that, because of the state of the facts, we simply cannot say what happened. We cannot find the pilots negligent; we cannot condemn the equipment. I regard that not as a failure of the inquiring mind but as a compliment to its integrity, if the evidence is inadequate to reach a conclusion that meets the test: absolutely no doubt whatsoever.”
Lord Brennan, I suggest, yet again nails this one. We really do not know what happened here and we could argue until the cows come home. I have seen talk of FADEC runups/rundowns, IN/GPS failures, clandestine USAF ops in the area (that probably dates me a bit!), even wake turbulence from an Aurora! Alas, I think that God/Allah/Buddah et al (to be ecumenically correct and not upset anyone), Himself, is the only One who actually knows what happened – even the two Pilots who sadly perished that day may not know. I believe we will never, ever, know what happened. Frustrating? Yes. Inconceivable? No! Sometimes, in this world, things happen and we simply will never know why. Just think of your own lives – I’m sure you all have had those “what the **** happened there” situations! We did our best and still it all went to rats! OK, so H 'n' H has a higher average than most in that Dept!
But you get my drift!
Fortunately, the original BoI adopted the entirely logical approach of “Innocent until proven guilty”. This approach was overturned by Messers Wratten and Day, both senior RAF Officers at the time. But on what grounds? That appears even more ethereal than the actual cause of the original crash. Personal vendetta? Nah! Political pressure? Mmm? Technical insight? What a crystal ball to have so rubbish! Only W and D know why they overturned that decision. But even they may not be able to face themselves – not that they will realise that in psychological terms.
“Beyond reasonable doubt”. We (many of us, the BoI, HoL, etc, etc) were never there based on fact. W & D were never there if based on fact. Give the lads a rest and clear their names. If there is any retribution due, let someone who knows what happened sort that out if, indeed, such is due! Somehow, I think that mortal beings are not in that league. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the only way forward for the lads up front.
Here endeth the “Hot ‘n’ High” Rant!!!!!!!! Ho hum!
As an Aviator and Engineer, I claim no detailed knowledge of this sorry accident – to claim to do so would be crass. However, the last time I posted on this Thread I opined that the two pilots involved were innocent due to the fact that, as it appeared to me then, and still does today, we simply do not know what happened that sad day. Fortunately, someone far more erudite than I stated:
“Twenty-nine people died. Every reasonable person thinks to himself that there must be an explanation—either people were negligent or there was aircraft failure or a mixture of the two. We search for a conclusion. However, to the inquiring, objective mind, a doubting investigation and a willingness to indulge in scrutiny ensures a fair result. Such an approach may mean that, because of the state of the facts, we simply cannot say what happened. We cannot find the pilots negligent; we cannot condemn the equipment. I regard that not as a failure of the inquiring mind but as a compliment to its integrity, if the evidence is inadequate to reach a conclusion that meets the test: absolutely no doubt whatsoever.”
Lord Brennan, I suggest, yet again nails this one. We really do not know what happened here and we could argue until the cows come home. I have seen talk of FADEC runups/rundowns, IN/GPS failures, clandestine USAF ops in the area (that probably dates me a bit!), even wake turbulence from an Aurora! Alas, I think that God/Allah/Buddah et al (to be ecumenically correct and not upset anyone), Himself, is the only One who actually knows what happened – even the two Pilots who sadly perished that day may not know. I believe we will never, ever, know what happened. Frustrating? Yes. Inconceivable? No! Sometimes, in this world, things happen and we simply will never know why. Just think of your own lives – I’m sure you all have had those “what the **** happened there” situations! We did our best and still it all went to rats! OK, so H 'n' H has a higher average than most in that Dept!
But you get my drift!Fortunately, the original BoI adopted the entirely logical approach of “Innocent until proven guilty”. This approach was overturned by Messers Wratten and Day, both senior RAF Officers at the time. But on what grounds? That appears even more ethereal than the actual cause of the original crash. Personal vendetta? Nah! Political pressure? Mmm? Technical insight? What a crystal ball to have so rubbish! Only W and D know why they overturned that decision. But even they may not be able to face themselves – not that they will realise that in psychological terms.
“Beyond reasonable doubt”. We (many of us, the BoI, HoL, etc, etc) were never there based on fact. W & D were never there if based on fact. Give the lads a rest and clear their names. If there is any retribution due, let someone who knows what happened sort that out if, indeed, such is due! Somehow, I think that mortal beings are not in that league. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the only way forward for the lads up front.
Here endeth the “Hot ‘n’ High” Rant!!!!!!!! Ho hum!
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,
apologies for (as usual at the moment) a delay in replying.
The FoI result was interesting. As yet, I have had nothing back with regards my June request so, again, the MoD are in conflict with the legislation. However, I'm sure that when they read this, they will pull their finger out! They have already had one reminder, so the next time I write (in the not too distant future) it will be to the Director of Information Exploitation.
Anyway, to answer your question, I received the following:
1. The Interim CA Release Recommendations.
2. The incident Signal where ZD576 had to divert due to an 'Eng Fail' caption illumination.
3. A list of who attended a meeting between the Procurement Executive and Boscombe Down (with all names blanked out!)
4. A copy of the Release to Service document.
A further four documents could not be found (despite at least one of them being placed before the House of Lords Select Committee), but I have been promised copies should they subsequently come to light. Therefore, I won't list them in case it causes a problem for their disclosure in the future - because I know the MoD will have someone looking day and night for them
The Campaign continues to progress several very 'interesting' lines of investigation and when I am able to do so, I will post them here. At the moment, we are checking and re-checking our facts before deciding upon our next move(s).
Please be assured that we are still very committed to restoring the reputation of Rick and Jon and as each day goes by, our 'case' is getting stronger and stronger.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
apologies for (as usual at the moment) a delay in replying.
The FoI result was interesting. As yet, I have had nothing back with regards my June request so, again, the MoD are in conflict with the legislation. However, I'm sure that when they read this, they will pull their finger out! They have already had one reminder, so the next time I write (in the not too distant future) it will be to the Director of Information Exploitation.
Anyway, to answer your question, I received the following:
1. The Interim CA Release Recommendations.
2. The incident Signal where ZD576 had to divert due to an 'Eng Fail' caption illumination.
3. A list of who attended a meeting between the Procurement Executive and Boscombe Down (with all names blanked out!)
4. A copy of the Release to Service document.
A further four documents could not be found (despite at least one of them being placed before the House of Lords Select Committee), but I have been promised copies should they subsequently come to light. Therefore, I won't list them in case it causes a problem for their disclosure in the future - because I know the MoD will have someone looking day and night for them
The Campaign continues to progress several very 'interesting' lines of investigation and when I am able to do so, I will post them here. At the moment, we are checking and re-checking our facts before deciding upon our next move(s).
Please be assured that we are still very committed to restoring the reputation of Rick and Jon and as each day goes by, our 'case' is getting stronger and stronger.
My best, 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
Hi Mr B.
I can assure you that our preparation continues and our 'case' continues to get stronger and stronger. The timing of said kick towards someone's arse is all important, so we will pick our moment carefully. The target is already in our sights!
Please be assured that the Campaign is still in full swing, full of momentum and has as much determination to succeed today as we had on the first day of our mammoth journey. Jon and Rick will not be forgotten and their reputations will be rightfully restored.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I can assure you that our preparation continues and our 'case' continues to get stronger and stronger. The timing of said kick towards someone's arse is all important, so we will pick our moment carefully. The target is already in our sights!
Please be assured that the Campaign is still in full swing, full of momentum and has as much determination to succeed today as we had on the first day of our mammoth journey. Jon and Rick will not be forgotten and their reputations will be rightfully restored.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian
By 'slats' I meant his crown jewels. In the arse would just give him a mild headache!
Don't mean to be so flippant on this thread but I am just so sad ... and infuriated ... that this lack of justice is still ongoing. And the real guilty bar-stewards swan around in their oh-so-righteous manner. Makes me sick .....
By 'slats' I meant his crown jewels. In the arse would just give him a mild headache!
Don't mean to be so flippant on this thread but I am just so sad ... and infuriated ... that this lack of justice is still ongoing. And the real guilty bar-stewards swan around in their oh-so-righteous manner. Makes me sick .....
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
No problem, Mr B. New target co-ordinates acknowledged!
You aren't being flippant at all. It is frustrating. It is an absolute disgrace that this injustice continues after such a long time. How the families remain so dignified is nothing short of inspirational. How the MoD remain so blind to what is clearly in front of them is nothing short of a disgrace.
Please take comfort in the fact that your, and everyone else's interest and support in this injustice has, without doubt, kept the Campaign going - and for that we truly thank you.
We are just as determined today as we were all those years ago. We will succeed!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
You aren't being flippant at all. It is frustrating. It is an absolute disgrace that this injustice continues after such a long time. How the families remain so dignified is nothing short of inspirational. How the MoD remain so blind to what is clearly in front of them is nothing short of a disgrace.
Please take comfort in the fact that your, and everyone else's interest and support in this injustice has, without doubt, kept the Campaign going - and for that we truly thank you.
We are just as determined today as we were all those years ago. We will succeed!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I write as a former civilian Chinook and North Sea pilot who on many occasions found myself in the position of the RAF crew, that is, approaching land in poor weather and having to make the decision either to attempt to continue visually or to climb IFR. I appreciate that the aircraft in question was not equipped to continue IFR because of its lack of de-iceing equipment but up to the point at which the aircraft went below VMC limits the situation is the same. At that point the crews only options were to return to Aldergrove or attempt to continue the flight off-shore where they were within VMC limits in the hope of finding better weather further north.
I simply do not understand how an experienced crew got themselves into the position which they did and I say that with heavy heart. There was no evidence of any equipment failure that would have caused the crash. I think that to say that there may have been a failure after the aircraft passed the waypoint which subsequently cleared itself leaving no evidence within the remaining minutes of flight is clutching at straws. The whole point about operation of a twin-engined aircraft is that with any failure, engines, hydraulics, electrics, (but not helicopter gear-boxes), safe flight can be maintained. I feel that over the years too many people who clearly do not understand the situation sufficiently have contributed too many red herrings.
I appreciate the view-point of the many who feel that the verdict of gross negligence is unsustainable. With no actual knowledge of what happened possibly a finding even of negligence is unfair. However, a serviceable aircraft was flown into a hill in poor weather conditions. If there is no evidence to sustain either of those verdicts then there is also no evidence to find the pilots innocent. It saddens me greatly to reach that conclusion but, with enormous sympathy for the families, it seems to me that there is no other realistic answer. What the verdict would be in those circumstances I leave to the legal experts.
I simply do not understand how an experienced crew got themselves into the position which they did and I say that with heavy heart. There was no evidence of any equipment failure that would have caused the crash. I think that to say that there may have been a failure after the aircraft passed the waypoint which subsequently cleared itself leaving no evidence within the remaining minutes of flight is clutching at straws. The whole point about operation of a twin-engined aircraft is that with any failure, engines, hydraulics, electrics, (but not helicopter gear-boxes), safe flight can be maintained. I feel that over the years too many people who clearly do not understand the situation sufficiently have contributed too many red herrings.
I appreciate the view-point of the many who feel that the verdict of gross negligence is unsustainable. With no actual knowledge of what happened possibly a finding even of negligence is unfair. However, a serviceable aircraft was flown into a hill in poor weather conditions. If there is no evidence to sustain either of those verdicts then there is also no evidence to find the pilots innocent. It saddens me greatly to reach that conclusion but, with enormous sympathy for the families, it seems to me that there is no other realistic answer. What the verdict would be in those circumstances I leave to the legal experts.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
With deference to your aviation experience, would you not accept that no proper legal process would require anyone to produce evidence of the pilots' innocence in order to remove from their reputations an unsustainable verdict of guilt?
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
Thank you for your contribution, and it's tone. You are correct inasmuch as this: All of the operators here have struggled with the apparent 'facts' as you have stated them, and as is frequently pushed by the MOD.
I have the greatest of respect for your opinions, and accept that it may very well be, that at the end of our exchange we still find ourselves in disagreement.
My only two challenges to you are these:
1) You stated; " a serviceable aircraft was flown into a hill in poor weather conditions"
Of course our position would be to question how you 'know' the aircraft was serviceable? Since the AAIB stated quite categorically that the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft could not be positively determined.
Also we accept that the weather at the accident site may very well have been poor, being in patchy hill fog (the mist being described by some as, coming and going) but there is little evidence as to the view from the perspective of the two pilots as they approached the Mull.
2) The standard of proof required to find these two pilots guilty of any form of negligence was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". Whilst the MOD, (effectively investigating itself!) found this standard to be satisfied. other INDEPENDENT inquiries, commencing with, though not limited to, the highly respected FAI, found that even a 'balance of probability' could not be satisfied when assessing the contribution of the pilots to the accident!
Please do not forget that you would have enjoyed very many advantages to our departed colleagues, had you found yourself in your Chinook on that fateful day. Not least, the luxury of an FDR, and CVR which would have allowed all and sundry to have examined 'your' side of the story in your tragic absence!!!
And we won't even mention a Certificate of Airworthiness!
Please consider very carefully what you think you know to be 'facts' about this case. Those who disagree with your previous post aren't entirely without similar flying experience to yourself.
If you are still interested, there is so much information about this accident available, in so many places, that it could take you a few months to get fully 'up to speed' on all the arguments and counter arguments. But if you feel so inclined, then welcome aboard.
Regards.
Thank you for your contribution, and it's tone. You are correct inasmuch as this: All of the operators here have struggled with the apparent 'facts' as you have stated them, and as is frequently pushed by the MOD.
I have the greatest of respect for your opinions, and accept that it may very well be, that at the end of our exchange we still find ourselves in disagreement.
My only two challenges to you are these:
1) You stated; " a serviceable aircraft was flown into a hill in poor weather conditions"
Of course our position would be to question how you 'know' the aircraft was serviceable? Since the AAIB stated quite categorically that the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft could not be positively determined.
Also we accept that the weather at the accident site may very well have been poor, being in patchy hill fog (the mist being described by some as, coming and going) but there is little evidence as to the view from the perspective of the two pilots as they approached the Mull.
2) The standard of proof required to find these two pilots guilty of any form of negligence was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". Whilst the MOD, (effectively investigating itself!) found this standard to be satisfied. other INDEPENDENT inquiries, commencing with, though not limited to, the highly respected FAI, found that even a 'balance of probability' could not be satisfied when assessing the contribution of the pilots to the accident!
Please do not forget that you would have enjoyed very many advantages to our departed colleagues, had you found yourself in your Chinook on that fateful day. Not least, the luxury of an FDR, and CVR which would have allowed all and sundry to have examined 'your' side of the story in your tragic absence!!!
And we won't even mention a Certificate of Airworthiness!
Please consider very carefully what you think you know to be 'facts' about this case. Those who disagree with your previous post aren't entirely without similar flying experience to yourself.
If you are still interested, there is so much information about this accident available, in so many places, that it could take you a few months to get fully 'up to speed' on all the arguments and counter arguments. But if you feel so inclined, then welcome aboard.
Regards.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ginseng
Yes, I would accept that and possibly I have stated my case poorly. I admit I would be out of my depth if I attempted to define a legal verdict.
I know that many people feel that gross negligence or negligence is the wrong verdict and unsustainable since there is no proof of either. If that is the legal position, or the RAF's military legal position I do not understand how the verdicts can stand or who supports them.
There are three possible causes of aircraft accidents, pilot error, servicing error or technical error. There was no suggestion of servicing error and no evidence of technical error. While no proof of pilot error has been found, the aircraft did crash for no apparent reason. I do not believe that claiming that the pilots were not responsible is an accurate or honest answer since, painful as the conclusion must be, it remains a strong possibility. Is there a legal verdict in such a case as this between guilty and innocent?
Yes, I would accept that and possibly I have stated my case poorly. I admit I would be out of my depth if I attempted to define a legal verdict.
I know that many people feel that gross negligence or negligence is the wrong verdict and unsustainable since there is no proof of either. If that is the legal position, or the RAF's military legal position I do not understand how the verdicts can stand or who supports them.
There are three possible causes of aircraft accidents, pilot error, servicing error or technical error. There was no suggestion of servicing error and no evidence of technical error. While no proof of pilot error has been found, the aircraft did crash for no apparent reason. I do not believe that claiming that the pilots were not responsible is an accurate or honest answer since, painful as the conclusion must be, it remains a strong possibility. Is there a legal verdict in such a case as this between guilty and innocent?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
Thanks for the courteous reply. I agree with you insofaras I do not, and never have, claimed to know for sure that the pilots were not responsible for the accident. I have even said here in the past that some measure of responsibility must remain a strong possibility. However, that does not make it so. I am not a fan of the wilder theories about "disappearing" technical faults, or of little green men with wacky radio devices, or black supersonic aircraft. I consider only that there is insufficient proof, emanating from deeply unscientific analysis, and enough bucketfuls of doubt to make this verdict unsustainable in any proper court of law. The best verdict I can suggest, deeply unsatisfactory though it is to both "sides", is the good old Scottish one: Not Proven.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng