Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
We all (I think) accept that pilot error is indeed a possible cause of this accident. Sadly for the MOD this 'possibility' would fall well short of even 'balance of probability' never mind 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'.
There are, as you have already accepted, other possible causes of aircraft accidents, few of which can be positively excluded in this case!
Even 'pilot error' does not necessarily have to fall into the category of negligence!!!
I would argue that, in a perverse way, this case is complicated, by the overwhelming absence of reliable factual information!
But then we have to start arguing about what constitutes a 'fact'!
I know what I think the word means. I also think Sheriff Sir Steven Young, and many others, have a pretty good idea too!
We all (I think) accept that pilot error is indeed a possible cause of this accident. Sadly for the MOD this 'possibility' would fall well short of even 'balance of probability' never mind 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'.
There are, as you have already accepted, other possible causes of aircraft accidents, few of which can be positively excluded in this case!
Even 'pilot error' does not necessarily have to fall into the category of negligence!!!
I would argue that, in a perverse way, this case is complicated, by the overwhelming absence of reliable factual information!
But then we have to start arguing about what constitutes a 'fact'!
I know what I think the word means. I also think Sheriff Sir Steven Young, and many others, have a pretty good idea too!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
Just as back-ground, I followed the case closely when the details first began to appear. I watched a presentation to the House of Lords Committee which explained the case to them as laymen and I have read many of the subsequent technical and legal reports and the threads on this site.
I accept that the verdicts are unsustainable legally and, like most people, am at a loss as to why they have not at least been reviewed.
I accept your point about aircraft serviceability. However, the aircraft had just departed Aldergrove and was surely serviceable then or it would not have been cleared or accepted. Nothing that could have caused the accident was found subsequent to the crash. I remake the point I made in another post that if the aircraft was being operated correctly, what could have occurred after the aircraft had passed the waypoint that caused it to crash of which there was subsequently no evidence and which dual systems could not have coped with.
The lighthouse keeper reported that he was in fog. If I had been flying a passenger flight, as I was many times, I would have been required to be at least five hundred feet above ground-level before crossing the coast and I would have had the option of continuing IFR if I had been unable to maintain that separation which they did not. There has been no suggestion that I have found that the weather was anything approaching that.
As regards the verdict I accept that if there was no proof of neglicence then it must be wrong.
I'm not sure what the very many advantages were that I would have enjoyed. The aircraft was either equipped for its task or it was not. FDR's and CVR's are certainly relevant after the accident but not before. As regards a C of A, after thirty odd years I can't remember what the military equivalent was and I don't mean to be flippant.
I suspect that what separates us is a matter of degree. We are agreed that a verdict of gross negligence or negligence is unacceptable. My point is simply that I have seen or read nothing nor does my experience suggest to me anything that could rule out pilot responsibility which must remain a possibility.
Finally, I decided to contribute to this argument partly to see if my understanding of this tragic case was flawed and where. Some points have been raised by professionals such as yourself but there have been far too many red herrings raised by laymen that have clouded the issue. I do not believe that, painful a conclusion though it may be, a finding of innocent would be an accurate or honest answer.
Just as back-ground, I followed the case closely when the details first began to appear. I watched a presentation to the House of Lords Committee which explained the case to them as laymen and I have read many of the subsequent technical and legal reports and the threads on this site.
I accept that the verdicts are unsustainable legally and, like most people, am at a loss as to why they have not at least been reviewed.
I accept your point about aircraft serviceability. However, the aircraft had just departed Aldergrove and was surely serviceable then or it would not have been cleared or accepted. Nothing that could have caused the accident was found subsequent to the crash. I remake the point I made in another post that if the aircraft was being operated correctly, what could have occurred after the aircraft had passed the waypoint that caused it to crash of which there was subsequently no evidence and which dual systems could not have coped with.
The lighthouse keeper reported that he was in fog. If I had been flying a passenger flight, as I was many times, I would have been required to be at least five hundred feet above ground-level before crossing the coast and I would have had the option of continuing IFR if I had been unable to maintain that separation which they did not. There has been no suggestion that I have found that the weather was anything approaching that.
As regards the verdict I accept that if there was no proof of neglicence then it must be wrong.
I'm not sure what the very many advantages were that I would have enjoyed. The aircraft was either equipped for its task or it was not. FDR's and CVR's are certainly relevant after the accident but not before. As regards a C of A, after thirty odd years I can't remember what the military equivalent was and I don't mean to be flippant.
I suspect that what separates us is a matter of degree. We are agreed that a verdict of gross negligence or negligence is unacceptable. My point is simply that I have seen or read nothing nor does my experience suggest to me anything that could rule out pilot responsibility which must remain a possibility.
Finally, I decided to contribute to this argument partly to see if my understanding of this tragic case was flawed and where. Some points have been raised by professionals such as yourself but there have been far too many red herrings raised by laymen that have clouded the issue. I do not believe that, painful a conclusion though it may be, a finding of innocent would be an accurate or honest answer.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im with you Bos.... I have always been doubts and concerns. I have studied this sad story for many years now and still cannot understand what on earth they were doing. In effect they were IMC below the Safety altitude and that is wrong.
The point that many people (including me) make is that nobody can prove whether they were IMC or not and therefore they are not guilty of "Gross Negligence". They were guilty of many things but they were not Grossly negligent.
The point that many people (including me) make is that nobody can prove whether they were IMC or not and therefore they are not guilty of "Gross Negligence". They were guilty of many things but they were not Grossly negligent.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
I am familiar with the concept but I don't believe it is that simple. All correspondents to this thread and in the wider world seem to be in agreement that the verdict of gross negligence is unsustainable, a view given force by the many legal bodies who feel that the verdict should be over-turned.
That is a long way from establishing innocence of any degree of responsibility for the accident. I doubt that closure, to use a cliched but apt modern term, can be achieved until the case is re-examined, preferably by a civilian court of enquiry and a verdict reached that no-one can subsequently claim is legally flawed.
I would be as delighted as anyone if that verdict were to be 'not guilty'.
I am familiar with the concept but I don't believe it is that simple. All correspondents to this thread and in the wider world seem to be in agreement that the verdict of gross negligence is unsustainable, a view given force by the many legal bodies who feel that the verdict should be over-turned.
That is a long way from establishing innocence of any degree of responsibility for the accident. I doubt that closure, to use a cliched but apt modern term, can be achieved until the case is re-examined, preferably by a civilian court of enquiry and a verdict reached that no-one can subsequently claim is legally flawed.
I would be as delighted as anyone if that verdict were to be 'not guilty'.
Boslandew,
Before you assume too much about the servicability of this particular Chinook I would encourage you to read John Blakeley's posts and his report which can be found on the Campaign website on http://chinook-justice.org/.
I would be fascinated to hear your reaction if you had discovered that your civilian Chinook was in this condition. E.g. would you consider an aeroplane to be serviceable which required the DECU connector to be checked every 15 minutes of flight? Would you have used a machine which had suffered detached pallet springs in a previous flight and which was still under investigation?
Before you assume too much about the servicability of this particular Chinook I would encourage you to read John Blakeley's posts and his report which can be found on the Campaign website on http://chinook-justice.org/.
I would be fascinated to hear your reaction if you had discovered that your civilian Chinook was in this condition. E.g. would you consider an aeroplane to be serviceable which required the DECU connector to be checked every 15 minutes of flight? Would you have used a machine which had suffered detached pallet springs in a previous flight and which was still under investigation?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
Are you familiar with the workings of a Fatal Accident Inquiry?
Are you familiar with the findings of the FAI in this particular case?
It seems to me that this case already HAS been re-examined, by a civilian court, the findings of which NOBODY has (yet) claimed to be legally flawed.
In a perverse way, and without wishing to sound unnecessarily flippant: Weren't the guys lucky their accident occured in Scotland!
Regards
PS. As far as the issue of guilt/innocence is concerned, I can't find fault with the assessment of the president of the Board of Inquiry, who said something very similar to this:
It would be incorrect to criticise the pilots for human failings, as it was impossible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the accident
I hope my memory isn't too far from the record. I think that statement says it all!
I doubt that closure, to use a cliched but apt modern term, can be achieved until the case is re-examined, preferably by a civilian court of enquiry and a verdict reached that no-one can subsequently claim is legally flawed.
Are you familiar with the findings of the FAI in this particular case?
It seems to me that this case already HAS been re-examined, by a civilian court, the findings of which NOBODY has (yet) claimed to be legally flawed.
In a perverse way, and without wishing to sound unnecessarily flippant: Weren't the guys lucky their accident occured in Scotland!
Regards
PS. As far as the issue of guilt/innocence is concerned, I can't find fault with the assessment of the president of the Board of Inquiry, who said something very similar to this:
It would be incorrect to criticise the pilots for human failings, as it was impossible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the accident
I hope my memory isn't too far from the record. I think that statement says it all!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse1
I can only say that in ten years of military flying and twenty-five years of civilian flying I cannot remember, even as a very green sergeant pilot, being pressured or asked to accept an aircraft that an aircraft engineer was not prepared to sign off as being serviceable or to accept a defect that was not in the Acceptable Deferred Defects list.
Tandem Rotor
I suggested a civilian enquiry because the civilian standards of proof are clearly higher than those used by the BOI in this case. My only comment is that I was suggesting that a civilian enquiry should be carried out after the RAF verdict had been over-turned - I know not who would have the authority to do that - so that the findings of that enquiry could then become the official one, hence some sense of closure.
I can only say that in ten years of military flying and twenty-five years of civilian flying I cannot remember, even as a very green sergeant pilot, being pressured or asked to accept an aircraft that an aircraft engineer was not prepared to sign off as being serviceable or to accept a defect that was not in the Acceptable Deferred Defects list.
Tandem Rotor
I suggested a civilian enquiry because the civilian standards of proof are clearly higher than those used by the BOI in this case. My only comment is that I was suggesting that a civilian enquiry should be carried out after the RAF verdict had been over-turned - I know not who would have the authority to do that - so that the findings of that enquiry could then become the official one, hence some sense of closure.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
In fact as I stated earlier, the standard of proof applied by the FAI, was significantly less stringent (balance of probability) ie. easier to satisfy, than the standard of proof used by the BOI (absolutely no doubt whatsoever)
But still the FAI could identify no evidence to criticise the pilots.
In fact as I stated earlier, the standard of proof applied by the FAI, was significantly less stringent (balance of probability) ie. easier to satisfy, than the standard of proof used by the BOI (absolutely no doubt whatsoever)
But still the FAI could identify no evidence to criticise the pilots.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boslandew
Having been away from the internet for the last 10 days I have only just seen Boslandew's post 2670. I also note that there have already been some excellent responses, which I support. As usual we are in the "nobody knows" situation and I would never say that this accident could not have been caused by pilot error, but as Boslandew says this is a long way from the standards of proof required for gross negligence.
In some areas Boslandew is totally incorrect - we have as many (I would say more) "facts" to support the possibility of a "disappearing" technical defect as there are for aircrew error (eg false engine fail captions for up to 12 seconds as written up in the RTS - what about both coming on together - and don't say it can't happen - someone wins the national lottery at what are probably far higher odds every week.) As has been pointed out by others the AAIB report certainly did not say the aircraft was serviceable - at the risk of boring those who have read it all before what they actually said with regard to potential control problems was:
43. Almost all parts of the flight control mechanical systems were identified, with no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunction, although the possibility of control system jam could not be positively dismissed.
44. Most attachment inserts on both flight control system pallets had detached, including the collective balance spring bracket that had previously detached from ZD576’s thrust/yaw pallet, with little evidence available to eliminate the possibility of pre-impact detachment.
45. The method of attaching components to the pallets appeared less positive and less verifiable than would normally be expected for a flight control system application.
A few weeks after the accident MOD issued a SI relating to the security of the pallets - SI/CHINOOK/60, 23 June 1994, Flying Control Pallet Threaded Insert De-bonding - despite requests and the fact that such a SI is clearly part of the aircraft airworthiness audit trail MOD claim that they can find no trace of this SI.
The BOI itself does of course contain clear evidence of a maintenance error in that the "inadequate" defect diagnosis of a fluctuating PTIT gauge took place with no paperwork (apparently condoned by the Sqn Ldr Engineer responsible for the Chinook detachment's engineering standards at Aldergrove) and with, apperantly no realistaion that they were working on a system which had caused a major incident only two weeks earlier - an incident that we now know was one of 4 in-service (not flight trials related) incidents that finally caused Boscombe Down to stop their trials flying - the fact that none of this was brought to the attention of the BOI seems to me to be a case of negligence in its own right!
So whatever else you may think please do not assume the aircraft was serviceable or even in terms of flying civilian passengers airworthy to the same standards as you would have required for North Sea operations.
In some areas Boslandew is totally incorrect - we have as many (I would say more) "facts" to support the possibility of a "disappearing" technical defect as there are for aircrew error (eg false engine fail captions for up to 12 seconds as written up in the RTS - what about both coming on together - and don't say it can't happen - someone wins the national lottery at what are probably far higher odds every week.) As has been pointed out by others the AAIB report certainly did not say the aircraft was serviceable - at the risk of boring those who have read it all before what they actually said with regard to potential control problems was:
43. Almost all parts of the flight control mechanical systems were identified, with no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunction, although the possibility of control system jam could not be positively dismissed.
44. Most attachment inserts on both flight control system pallets had detached, including the collective balance spring bracket that had previously detached from ZD576’s thrust/yaw pallet, with little evidence available to eliminate the possibility of pre-impact detachment.
45. The method of attaching components to the pallets appeared less positive and less verifiable than would normally be expected for a flight control system application.
A few weeks after the accident MOD issued a SI relating to the security of the pallets - SI/CHINOOK/60, 23 June 1994, Flying Control Pallet Threaded Insert De-bonding - despite requests and the fact that such a SI is clearly part of the aircraft airworthiness audit trail MOD claim that they can find no trace of this SI.
The BOI itself does of course contain clear evidence of a maintenance error in that the "inadequate" defect diagnosis of a fluctuating PTIT gauge took place with no paperwork (apparently condoned by the Sqn Ldr Engineer responsible for the Chinook detachment's engineering standards at Aldergrove) and with, apperantly no realistaion that they were working on a system which had caused a major incident only two weeks earlier - an incident that we now know was one of 4 in-service (not flight trials related) incidents that finally caused Boscombe Down to stop their trials flying - the fact that none of this was brought to the attention of the BOI seems to me to be a case of negligence in its own right!
So whatever else you may think please do not assume the aircraft was serviceable or even in terms of flying civilian passengers airworthy to the same standards as you would have required for North Sea operations.
I agree, its full of pet theories and schoolboy squabbles.
Its time it was put to bed. Certainly its "sticky" status requires review IMHO.
A more appropriate place to debate this might be the campaign's own website?
Its time it was put to bed. Certainly its "sticky" status requires review IMHO.
A more appropriate place to debate this might be the campaign's own website?
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion, but there again so are the people, of which I am one, that believe a glaring and massive injustice has been done to two RAF pilots unable to defend themselves. Aye, and the biggest issue of all is that the injustice was done in a procedure contrary to the RAFs own norms by two senior RAF officers. The reputation of those two officers is as much in the balance as that of the two pilots, indeed the reputation of the RAF itself is at stake. So you think it's just schoolboy squabbles, then read something else. This is a thread anyone may post on, hence all the pet theories, but interlaced throughout is a drama of crucial importance. If these guys can be so summarily stuffed by the system for its own political purposes, then so can anyone else. When this finding is reversed then by all means unstick it, until then Pprune is playing its part in a worthy cause. Oh, and if these two posts are those of Agent Provocateurs, congratulations you've provoked me!
Chugalug,
I was not trying to provoke you, as it happens I think the aims of the campaign are admirable.
I just think that its run its course as the top "sticky" on this forum. By all means keep it but remove its sticky status.
My comment about a forum on the subject on the campaign site was a serious one. Where better to show the powerful feelings of members of the campaign?
As ever not spil chkd.
I was not trying to provoke you, as it happens I think the aims of the campaign are admirable.
I just think that its run its course as the top "sticky" on this forum. By all means keep it but remove its sticky status.
My comment about a forum on the subject on the campaign site was a serious one. Where better to show the powerful feelings of members of the campaign?
As ever not spil chkd.
OK Skel, sorry for snapping. I'm afraid I have to disagree though. I know it has been going for a long time, but this thread is a very public face of the campaign. Unstick it and it will slip out of sight because the case has been made and there is little fresh to add. Your point conceded? Well yes and no. If this finding is overturned it will be a massive loss of face for the MOD and the AMs, so it has to be a long haul. But every post is the drip, drip, drip of water that will wear down and overcome the resistance still left. When you think of the august legal and political weight that has already come down on the side of the campaign, right will surely be done eventually. Whether a more concise campaign thread could replace or compliment this one I do not know, that is for the Campaign organisers and the Pprune moderators to determine. I think, though, that it would be a big mistake to remove any of the pressure being applied, indeed it is more likely that with a concerted push the whole rotten case that is the official RAF position will crumble before our eyes!
Chug
No need for the apology. As ever, you make some very valid points. Some of them i confess, i had not considered.
As you say every ounce of pressure is important.
as ever not spil chkd.
No need for the apology. As ever, you make some very valid points. Some of them i confess, i had not considered.
As you say every ounce of pressure is important.
as ever not spil chkd.
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
Skeleton,
welcome to the thread. Thank you for your generous response to the replies by Chugalug2, and thank you Chugalug2 for stating the case so eloquently.
This thread has evolved over the years into an integral part of the Campaign, and allows our many supporters to keep up to date with developments. It allows the Campaign to ask for support (in the form of contacting MPs etc) and for us to point out to the entire planet how Jon Tapper and Rick Cook were made scapegoats.
There are, of course, also those who don't share the same view as many of us and the thread also allows them a platform to try to convince me, and others, that we are wrong. To date, they have not done so, but I still welcome their views.
I have to say that the fact that this thread is now intergral to our campaign is due to the generosity and patience of all at PPRuNe Towers. They know that the Campaign is indebted to them for their support.
I can assure you that once justice has been done and the reputation of two fine aviators has been rightfully restored, I would certainly agree that the thread be allowed to gracefully slip into history. Until that day, and with the kind consent of Danny, I hope it will remain a sticky.
There is a meeting at the House of Lords in a few weeks. As always, I will keep you all updated as to the progress and what support we will need from you all.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread. Thank you for your generous response to the replies by Chugalug2, and thank you Chugalug2 for stating the case so eloquently.
This thread has evolved over the years into an integral part of the Campaign, and allows our many supporters to keep up to date with developments. It allows the Campaign to ask for support (in the form of contacting MPs etc) and for us to point out to the entire planet how Jon Tapper and Rick Cook were made scapegoats.
There are, of course, also those who don't share the same view as many of us and the thread also allows them a platform to try to convince me, and others, that we are wrong. To date, they have not done so, but I still welcome their views.
I have to say that the fact that this thread is now intergral to our campaign is due to the generosity and patience of all at PPRuNe Towers. They know that the Campaign is indebted to them for their support.
I can assure you that once justice has been done and the reputation of two fine aviators has been rightfully restored, I would certainly agree that the thread be allowed to gracefully slip into history. Until that day, and with the kind consent of Danny, I hope it will remain a sticky.
There is a meeting at the House of Lords in a few weeks. As always, I will keep you all updated as to the progress and what support we will need from you all.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian, only too glad to speak out for your worthy campaign. Many thanks for your kind words.
Skeleton, thank you for your courteous reply! Do we have a convert?
The more this issue is discussed, and not allowed to be forgotten, then the more people will be made aware that this affair constitutes the biggest 'stitch up' in the history of the RAF. Of the three major issues being threaded on this Forum, i.e. this one, the 'parliamentary questions' on Herc ESF thread of Nigeb, and the Nimrod crash, I personally see this one as representing the biggest scandal of them all, albeit the other two infer technical shortcomings leading to a tragic loss of life as well. At least the crews involved in the other two accidents have been rightly honoured by their service. Here alone that honour has been denied and a uniquely damning verdict of negligence substituted for it instead. This would be a bitter enough pill to swallow were it justified, but having read the opening posts of this thread, and the authoritative links on the campaign site, I for one see the Air Marshals' verdict, which overturned that of the RAF BOI, as arbitrary and bizarre. That the then Secretary of State for Defence at that time should also come to a similar conclusion should send a huge wave of doubt crashing through the corridors of the MOD. When other major institutions such as the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, and the House of Lords study into the matter are at variance (to put it politely) with their Airships, there is a seeming anomaly which poses the question WHY? Why continue with this cruel and unjust fiasco? You are discredited and appear mean and malevolent. You will have to reverse this finding, and then change your procedures so that such a scandalous injustice is never allowed to happen again. Shame on you MOD! Shame on you RAF! Enough now. Let Right be Done!
Skeleton, thank you for your courteous reply! Do we have a convert?
The more this issue is discussed, and not allowed to be forgotten, then the more people will be made aware that this affair constitutes the biggest 'stitch up' in the history of the RAF. Of the three major issues being threaded on this Forum, i.e. this one, the 'parliamentary questions' on Herc ESF thread of Nigeb, and the Nimrod crash, I personally see this one as representing the biggest scandal of them all, albeit the other two infer technical shortcomings leading to a tragic loss of life as well. At least the crews involved in the other two accidents have been rightly honoured by their service. Here alone that honour has been denied and a uniquely damning verdict of negligence substituted for it instead. This would be a bitter enough pill to swallow were it justified, but having read the opening posts of this thread, and the authoritative links on the campaign site, I for one see the Air Marshals' verdict, which overturned that of the RAF BOI, as arbitrary and bizarre. That the then Secretary of State for Defence at that time should also come to a similar conclusion should send a huge wave of doubt crashing through the corridors of the MOD. When other major institutions such as the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, and the House of Lords study into the matter are at variance (to put it politely) with their Airships, there is a seeming anomaly which poses the question WHY? Why continue with this cruel and unjust fiasco? You are discredited and appear mean and malevolent. You will have to reverse this finding, and then change your procedures so that such a scandalous injustice is never allowed to happen again. Shame on you MOD! Shame on you RAF! Enough now. Let Right be Done!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 6th Dec 2006 at 23:09.