Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, only to be 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!
Although myself and my family have been able to move on since the accident it is only right and proper that the families of Johnathan and Richard should also be granted the same grace.
PF, my sincere but belated condolences for your loss. As a very ex member of the RAF I feel a bit of an outsider on this Forum. Posting on such fraught and raw threads as this, the Nimrod and the Hercules ones verges on the presumptuous, and I hesitate to do so every time. But by the same token brave and encouraging replies from yourself and others who have been bereaved by these tragic accidents reassures me that my humble contributions have some merit. Personally I am appalled at the way the character of the Service I left 33 years ago has changed beyond recognition, and for the worse I fear. Pilot error has always been a convenient hook to hang all manner of technical and institutional shortcomings on, and such a finding has often constituted a miscarriage of justice for that reason. But in the "Chinook Affair" we have a miscarriage that is grosser than I personally am aware of in RAF history. A finding of gross negligence with only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence against two deceased officers is outrageous, and would have been unheard of in my day. It raises very uncomfortable questions about the degrees of morality extant in the higher command of the service. But such worries are secondary to the need to reverse this outrage and restore in full the reputations of these fine men. Let Right be Done!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 3rd Dec 2006 at 13:47.
jyndabyne, thankyou for your kind words. There is of course an advantage to being a very ex member, one is able to say things that serving members may feel, for very understandable reasons, reluctant to say. I feel very reluctant to make the sort of comments that I have felt compelled to make about the service I love. It is a very difficult and unpalatable thing to do. May I suggest that others like me who have served and are as anxious as I at what they have read on this thread and other ones on this Forum should speak out. This media is very powerful and well read, nothing like it existed in my day. If we had known about the Internet no doubt it would have been hailed as the answer to all problems of communication. At a stroke the higher echelons would have early knowledge of trouble and change tack to avoid it. Well it doesn't quite seem to work like that, but we may be sure that what is written here is followed and at least noted. The arm chair Test Pilots seem to have given it a rest for the present, so now is the time for anyone with a simple desire for justice to come forward. I know nothing about Helicopters, other than that God never meant wings to go round and round, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. I am not that self satisfied to think I am in anyway alone in that regard. The one quality, if there be any, that being British means is having a sense of fairness. What has been done here is profoundly unfair and very very wrong. Let Right be Done!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I lack the expertise to have an informed opinion on the technical arguements but the injustice is clear and I fully support the campaign to clear the pilot's names. My post is just to say "stick at it" and take heart from the apparent success of the Hercules retardent foam campaign that appears to have borne fruit. Whilst it is immpossible to say with certainty that the thread on pprune was a prime mover or even that it contributed to that cause, it is probable that it did and can not have harmed it in any event.
I know for a fact that this forum is viewed by the top brass and to remove the thread would only diminish the campaign and give succour to those who would prefer it to go quietly into the night.
Good luck and keep going.
I know for a fact that this forum is viewed by the top brass and to remove the thread would only diminish the campaign and give succour to those who would prefer it to go quietly into the night.
Good luck and keep going.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After again reading all the information that is in the public domain especially the House of Lords Report I find it incredible that the service I gave 24 years of my life too can still allow the findings to stand that the pilots were negligent to a gross degree. There is no one alive that can possibly know what happened on that fateful day and say that the aircraft was 100% serviceable and did not contribute to the accident . The only thing to me that sticks out like a sore thumb is the total arrogance of the two ACMs to their Lordships with their attitude of “Don’t confuse me with the facts” At one question Day said “I am afraid I have not read it for a while, my Lord”. What a load of rubbish. Does he expect us to believe that as an ACM appearing before a Lords Committee he would not have got a copy of the BOI REPORT and read it over and over again before his appearance? I’m sorry but it smacks of the old boys together or you scratch my back and I’ll look after you, a principle I saw on many occasions during my time in the service. Keep on plugging away to get justice for the two pilots I have no doubt whatsoever that one day the truth will out why the AOC and the C in C took the decision to crucify the pilots
Last edited by dwhcomputers; 9th Dec 2006 at 09:36. Reason: extra words
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Guildford
Age: 89
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hansard Report of 2002
I have just been reading the Hansard Report of the House of Commons debate on this tragic affair in 2002, and having attended all the House Of Lords Select Committee hearings, wondered if there has been any sensible outcome.
A barrister friend of mine who had many years advising the MOD on legal matters has taken a great interest in this case, and says that the MOD will "play it long", and hope that it "will all go away if they ignore it for long enough"
As an ex RAF pilot, I have been outraged at the lack of natural justice in this case, and applaud you for your determination to see justice done. Please keep hitting back; I am convinced you will be successful in the end.
For Brian, I am a new boy to this forum, but celebrated with you over coffee and cakes after the HoL findings came out; I hope this will be posted. could you please read and reply to the PM I have sent.
A barrister friend of mine who had many years advising the MOD on legal matters has taken a great interest in this case, and says that the MOD will "play it long", and hope that it "will all go away if they ignore it for long enough"
As an ex RAF pilot, I have been outraged at the lack of natural justice in this case, and applaud you for your determination to see justice done. Please keep hitting back; I am convinced you will be successful in the end.
For Brian, I am a new boy to this forum, but celebrated with you over coffee and cakes after the HoL findings came out; I hope this will be posted. could you please read and reply to the PM I have sent.
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
Vulcanite,
welcome to the thread and, may I say how delighted I am to hear from you again. I hope that you are well. I have been away for a while and have just got in from work, so won't trouble you at the moment. I'm catcing up with loads of things, but will hope to call you at the weekend, if that is in order.
Mr Purdey, as above, I shall respond to your PM over the weekend. My apologies for not replying sooner, but other matters have prevented me from doing so.
A quick update - the Campaign, although very quiet at the moment is in a very strong position at the moment. Documents are being collated and relevant information being extracted. A number of documentary requests to the MoD have been unable to be located, although I am assured that "If they are subsequently found, they will be provided to me."
Now, I may be a cynic, but I think that is a clever way of preventing me from appealing to the Ombudsman as the MoD haven't technically refused to supply the documents.
One of the final paragraphs points out, "I believe that you will now be aware of the direction that the Secretary of State gave in a written response to Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan that the standard of cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make." So, it looks like I have finally exhausted their patience!
Have to say that it won't stop me making my requests, nor appealing if I feel that I have been refused unjustly. Also, I maintain that all the documentation currently outstanding was requested prior to Dr Reid's attempt to put me off and, therefore, is not covered by his current efforts. A letter will be winging its way this week to enquire as to the progress in finding the outstanding documents. Irritating Sod?? Me?? Well, maybe just a bit.
Fear not, Vulcanite, your Barrister friend can rest easy. I have no intention of simply 'going away'. If the MoD haven't realised that by now, we've been giving them too much credit!
As always, my sincere thanks to all our supporters for your patience during these periods of self-imposed silence. It is necessary at the moment, but I assure you that when the time comes to 'go public', you will hear about it here.
Happy New Year to you all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread and, may I say how delighted I am to hear from you again. I hope that you are well. I have been away for a while and have just got in from work, so won't trouble you at the moment. I'm catcing up with loads of things, but will hope to call you at the weekend, if that is in order.
Mr Purdey, as above, I shall respond to your PM over the weekend. My apologies for not replying sooner, but other matters have prevented me from doing so.
A quick update - the Campaign, although very quiet at the moment is in a very strong position at the moment. Documents are being collated and relevant information being extracted. A number of documentary requests to the MoD have been unable to be located, although I am assured that "If they are subsequently found, they will be provided to me."
Now, I may be a cynic, but I think that is a clever way of preventing me from appealing to the Ombudsman as the MoD haven't technically refused to supply the documents.
One of the final paragraphs points out, "I believe that you will now be aware of the direction that the Secretary of State gave in a written response to Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan that the standard of cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make." So, it looks like I have finally exhausted their patience!
Have to say that it won't stop me making my requests, nor appealing if I feel that I have been refused unjustly. Also, I maintain that all the documentation currently outstanding was requested prior to Dr Reid's attempt to put me off and, therefore, is not covered by his current efforts. A letter will be winging its way this week to enquire as to the progress in finding the outstanding documents. Irritating Sod?? Me?? Well, maybe just a bit.
Fear not, Vulcanite, your Barrister friend can rest easy. I have no intention of simply 'going away'. If the MoD haven't realised that by now, we've been giving them too much credit!
As always, my sincere thanks to all our supporters for your patience during these periods of self-imposed silence. It is necessary at the moment, but I assure you that when the time comes to 'go public', you will hear about it here.
Happy New Year to you all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
Whilst there is a wealth of feeling being posted on thread closure's the MOD's would have to be completely barking to even consider closing this one after it has come so far, so ignore the ar@e who even mooted it
Whilst there is a wealth of feeling being posted on thread closure's the MOD's would have to be completely barking to even consider closing this one after it has come so far, so ignore the ar@e who even mooted it
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 everyone.
Please be assured that the Chinook issue has the full support of those responsible for PPRuNe, and they kindly allow the Campaign the Bandwidth to do what we do.
I can assure those who worry about such things that once justice has been properly served and the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook have been rightfully restored, this thread, and those in the archives, will be removed to free up what is probably a massive amount of space.
If, however, there was a requirement from Danny, or anyone from PPRuNe Towers, for us to go earlier, then we would do so - quietly, and with dignity. We accept that we are here as guests, and cannot express enough gratitude for being allowed to have done so much here over the years. The help and support PPRuNe has afforded the Campaign is beyond measure.
For those who find the Chinook thread distateful, may I respectfully suggest you do as I do - visit only the threads that interest you. I find it helps the blood pressure!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Please be assured that the Chinook issue has the full support of those responsible for PPRuNe, and they kindly allow the Campaign the Bandwidth to do what we do.
I can assure those who worry about such things that once justice has been properly served and the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook have been rightfully restored, this thread, and those in the archives, will be removed to free up what is probably a massive amount of space.
If, however, there was a requirement from Danny, or anyone from PPRuNe Towers, for us to go earlier, then we would do so - quietly, and with dignity. We accept that we are here as guests, and cannot express enough gratitude for being allowed to have done so much here over the years. The help and support PPRuNe has afforded the Campaign is beyond measure.
For those who find the Chinook thread distateful, may I respectfully suggest you do as I do - visit only the threads that interest you. I find it helps the blood pressure!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
tucumseh posted on 120208 on "Threads closing suspiciously?" #121 :-
"What a sad state of affairs this has led to...
So many threads here have no direct link to flying:
Chinook - Still hitting back 3... no direct link”
I don’t often take issue with posts here – I firmly believe people are entitled to their own opinion. But if anyone thinks a thread which has highlighted an example of complete and utter disregard for the safety and airworthiness of military aircraft, and the MoD’s continual lying and dissembling about the subject, as having “no direct link to flying” then I despair. However, I can think of a few who would like that thread to disappear. Some are retired; others are very senior in DPA and DLO. Ministers, past and present, certainly would. Which side are you on?"
OK so it is from the pram/toys/trainset thread which may pass into Pprune folklore and mythology! But as a clarion call to the fundamental issues at stake in this thread Tuc has done us a great service. As Brian Dixon says above, Jon and Rick's reputations must be completely restored before all else. However, and with due deference to Brian and with great respect, I feel that the MOD must then address the Airworthiness of the Chinook MK2 up to and following this accident. They will not wish to do so, hence their clumsy attempt to lay blame on the pilots, but truth will out. Better it is sooner rather than later, and cheaper too, certainly in money and possibly in more lives. Flight Safety used to be paramount in the RAF, but the situation these days tells a different and altogether worrying story.
Let right be done!
"What a sad state of affairs this has led to...
So many threads here have no direct link to flying:
Chinook - Still hitting back 3... no direct link”
I don’t often take issue with posts here – I firmly believe people are entitled to their own opinion. But if anyone thinks a thread which has highlighted an example of complete and utter disregard for the safety and airworthiness of military aircraft, and the MoD’s continual lying and dissembling about the subject, as having “no direct link to flying” then I despair. However, I can think of a few who would like that thread to disappear. Some are retired; others are very senior in DPA and DLO. Ministers, past and present, certainly would. Which side are you on?"
OK so it is from the pram/toys/trainset thread which may pass into Pprune folklore and mythology! But as a clarion call to the fundamental issues at stake in this thread Tuc has done us a great service. As Brian Dixon says above, Jon and Rick's reputations must be completely restored before all else. However, and with due deference to Brian and with great respect, I feel that the MOD must then address the Airworthiness of the Chinook MK2 up to and following this accident. They will not wish to do so, hence their clumsy attempt to lay blame on the pilots, but truth will out. Better it is sooner rather than later, and cheaper too, certainly in money and possibly in more lives. Flight Safety used to be paramount in the RAF, but the situation these days tells a different and altogether worrying story.
Let right be done!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 13th Jan 2007 at 06:37.
Thank you Chug
It will be interesting to compare the way MoD implement their airworthiness processes and procedures during the Chinook Mk3 fix to field contract with their methodology used for Mk2. Not much has changed in the interim, but perhaps this time they will look to demonstrating configuration control is robust on the whole aircraft, including equipment. I hope there will be a whole aircraft safety case. Maybe they’ll ensure the new DECU connector design (one assumes there is one) remains locked this time, instead of having to visually inspect it every 15mins during flight in case it became DETACHED and causes you to CRASH. Will they adopt a systems approach, or just continue with the “it worked in the factory, so it’ll work when integrated into a complex system of systems” approach, long advocated by senior staffs. There are mixed signs. Aforesaid senior staffs that condoned all this are mostly gone. However, many in MoD still regard much of it as a waste of money, so it remains to be seen if they’ll be willing to resurrect build standards and configuration control, thus facilitating a robust airworthiness audit trail. Unlike Mk2.
It will be interesting to compare the way MoD implement their airworthiness processes and procedures during the Chinook Mk3 fix to field contract with their methodology used for Mk2. Not much has changed in the interim, but perhaps this time they will look to demonstrating configuration control is robust on the whole aircraft, including equipment. I hope there will be a whole aircraft safety case. Maybe they’ll ensure the new DECU connector design (one assumes there is one) remains locked this time, instead of having to visually inspect it every 15mins during flight in case it became DETACHED and causes you to CRASH. Will they adopt a systems approach, or just continue with the “it worked in the factory, so it’ll work when integrated into a complex system of systems” approach, long advocated by senior staffs. There are mixed signs. Aforesaid senior staffs that condoned all this are mostly gone. However, many in MoD still regard much of it as a waste of money, so it remains to be seen if they’ll be willing to resurrect build standards and configuration control, thus facilitating a robust airworthiness audit trail. Unlike Mk2.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
I've not read all of the posts on this subject and I understand the emotive nature of this thread but isn't there another angle to look at here?
Perhaps Jon and Rick (and all on board) were victims of a certain culture within the RAF and a pressure to achieve an important trip.
I saw this culture several times in the Navy amongst the Junglie fraternity. It goes like this.........'Why do your HDS at 1000' when you can do it at 200' (and as fast as possible)?'
Now there's nothing wrong with that as long as the conditions allow. Perhaps the pilots considered flying higher but were unable due to weather and (perhaps) icing considerations. If this were the case then their supervisors (authorisers) should have considered the option of sending these important passengers on a chartered or scheduled airline (or a Herc or something). It seems that the responsibility for the circumstances surrounding the crash should not be loaded solely on the pilots but taken across the board..bottom to top etc.
Perhaps Jon and Rick (and all on board) were victims of a certain culture within the RAF and a pressure to achieve an important trip.
I saw this culture several times in the Navy amongst the Junglie fraternity. It goes like this.........'Why do your HDS at 1000' when you can do it at 200' (and as fast as possible)?'
Now there's nothing wrong with that as long as the conditions allow. Perhaps the pilots considered flying higher but were unable due to weather and (perhaps) icing considerations. If this were the case then their supervisors (authorisers) should have considered the option of sending these important passengers on a chartered or scheduled airline (or a Herc or something). It seems that the responsibility for the circumstances surrounding the crash should not be loaded solely on the pilots but taken across the board..bottom to top etc.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A somewhat less than tolerant post if I may say so. This tired old thread has waited for nearly two months for someone to take an interest and the latest person so to do is shot down in a few seconds.
With all due respect, I don't think the issues raised here are tired.
There are many threads in this forum, and others, which relate to directly to Mull of Kintyre. Take for example todays press report on the BOWMAN fiasco, in which the MoD are panned because they did not maintain configuration control on their vehicles. On BOWMAN this "only" cost time and money, but look at tucumseh's post above and you'll see the link. But on aircraft the effect of poor configuration control is a compromised airworthiness clearance. Maybe one day the powers that be will take an holistic view of all these incidents and come to the obvious conclusion. Lack of funding and poor practices are putting lives at risk. In this respect Creamer is right.
There is far more to this, and nearly 13 years on the same old problems occur.
May I suggest that, far from tired, these are fundamental issues.
Regards
There are many threads in this forum, and others, which relate to directly to Mull of Kintyre. Take for example todays press report on the BOWMAN fiasco, in which the MoD are panned because they did not maintain configuration control on their vehicles. On BOWMAN this "only" cost time and money, but look at tucumseh's post above and you'll see the link. But on aircraft the effect of poor configuration control is a compromised airworthiness clearance. Maybe one day the powers that be will take an holistic view of all these incidents and come to the obvious conclusion. Lack of funding and poor practices are putting lives at risk. In this respect Creamer is right.
There is far more to this, and nearly 13 years on the same old problems occur.
May I suggest that, far from tired, these are fundamental issues.
Regards
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I didn't shoot him down!! The comments were valid, but have been covered ad nauseum. Even if I had been abusive, when good friends/people die and someone wanders in and comments without even bothering to read the thread (yes, painfully long, but important), I think that a rebuke would not be out of place.
These were real people, with real families. The issue is not a convenient place to have a bit of a 'phish' to see if you can pick an on-line fight for a laugh.
These were real people, with real families. The issue is not a convenient place to have a bit of a 'phish' to see if you can pick an on-line fight for a laugh.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Creamer,
Welcome to the campaign thread. You are correct, a lot of emotion lies behind the posts on this topic. Please do read the background to it if you can spare the time.
I totally agree with your sentiment that the pax should have been sent "by other means" such as by a fixed wing (with an IFR and icing clearance). I have been saying this since the accident. I wrote a letter to Flight International twelve years ago saying just that, which they published, albeit watered down with a paragraph cut out. I have seen nothing to make me feel any different, only the contary.
Unfortunately it seems that some one in higher authority saw fit to mandate that the Chinook Mk2 was used despite it not having a proper C of A clearance and some unserviceabilities.
My own belief is that a point was being made about that higher authority's decision to find the type and the example serviceable, come what may, contrary to the advice given by the Boscombe Down test pilots who grounded their example the previous day. It wasn't serviceable or fit for purpose and as we all know, it ended in this terrible tragedy.
This was a management accident if ever there was one.
Welcome to the campaign thread. You are correct, a lot of emotion lies behind the posts on this topic. Please do read the background to it if you can spare the time.
I totally agree with your sentiment that the pax should have been sent "by other means" such as by a fixed wing (with an IFR and icing clearance). I have been saying this since the accident. I wrote a letter to Flight International twelve years ago saying just that, which they published, albeit watered down with a paragraph cut out. I have seen nothing to make me feel any different, only the contary.
Unfortunately it seems that some one in higher authority saw fit to mandate that the Chinook Mk2 was used despite it not having a proper C of A clearance and some unserviceabilities.
My own belief is that a point was being made about that higher authority's decision to find the type and the example serviceable, come what may, contrary to the advice given by the Boscombe Down test pilots who grounded their example the previous day. It wasn't serviceable or fit for purpose and as we all know, it ended in this terrible tragedy.
This was a management accident if ever there was one.