Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs2
The Boeing report I recommend you peruse breaks down the calculations so that you can do them yourself - check 'em. Anyway, the (slowing) speed is just one of many parameters that point to their heading for that landing area.
.
RE the new inquiry - I have made the point in the past that the way that the pilots were blamed was such that for many politicians and much of the general public there would have been no doubt that it was a simple case of pilot error.
This would have been convenient at the time to prevent possible trouble in NI as a reaction to a perceived (rightly or wrongly) dirty trick.
While it may well be long enough ago now for this to no longer be a valid concern, the question remains that if the pilots were not so clearly to blame, has enough been done to establish what actually happened, bearing in mind that perhaps there was more that could have been looked at beyond the possibility of pilot error and to be sure that there was no opportunity for, say, any extra activity to have been accidentally or wilfully manipulated to cause the crash.
Put again, could the MOD have any other information about this flight that was, perhaps, sensitive at the time and thought to have been not in the public interest to make widely known as the pilots were to blame anyway?
Can we still try and get the full story (all those unanswered anomalies)?
You see, while it would be a great achievement in its own right, clearing the pilots’ names without exploring fully any chance of someone else’s culpability is still denying full justice to them, the security forces onboard, and the British people.
The Boeing report I recommend you peruse breaks down the calculations so that you can do them yourself - check 'em. Anyway, the (slowing) speed is just one of many parameters that point to their heading for that landing area.
.
RE the new inquiry - I have made the point in the past that the way that the pilots were blamed was such that for many politicians and much of the general public there would have been no doubt that it was a simple case of pilot error.
This would have been convenient at the time to prevent possible trouble in NI as a reaction to a perceived (rightly or wrongly) dirty trick.
While it may well be long enough ago now for this to no longer be a valid concern, the question remains that if the pilots were not so clearly to blame, has enough been done to establish what actually happened, bearing in mind that perhaps there was more that could have been looked at beyond the possibility of pilot error and to be sure that there was no opportunity for, say, any extra activity to have been accidentally or wilfully manipulated to cause the crash.
Put again, could the MOD have any other information about this flight that was, perhaps, sensitive at the time and thought to have been not in the public interest to make widely known as the pilots were to blame anyway?
Can we still try and get the full story (all those unanswered anomalies)?
You see, while it would be a great achievement in its own right, clearing the pilots’ names without exploring fully any chance of someone else’s culpability is still denying full justice to them, the security forces onboard, and the British people.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tigs2. I'm afraid you have not being paying attention; it was Brian himself who claimed the title 'Irritating Sod' and then 'Irritating Pruner', not that it now matters.
But Brian Dixon , are you really saying that if the SofS does not agree with your opinion you will reject his findings? And if so, are you intending to say that to him before he grants you and your supporters the interview? And if so, why should he bother?
You rather sarcastically suggested some months ago that perhaps you might have sought my opinion as to how to approach the SofS, and as a former desk officer in MOD I could indeed perhaps have offered a few ideas. I just hope you have thought through your approach.
With continued good wishes JP
But Brian Dixon , are you really saying that if the SofS does not agree with your opinion you will reject his findings? And if so, are you intending to say that to him before he grants you and your supporters the interview? And if so, why should he bother?
You rather sarcastically suggested some months ago that perhaps you might have sought my opinion as to how to approach the SofS, and as a former desk officer in MOD I could indeed perhaps have offered a few ideas. I just hope you have thought through your approach.
With continued good wishes JP
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 Purdey,
No, I am not saying that I will 'reject' the SoS findings if he does not overturn the verdict. I am saying that my belief is that the verdict is unsustainable and I will continue to do all that I can to achieve its removal. The SoS is entitled to his views - as are you and I. Whatever his opinion, I will respect it for what it will be. His opinion. I don't necessarily have to agree with it it if differs from mine.
If I have appeared sarcastic in the past then please accept my apology. It was never by intent.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
No, I am not saying that I will 'reject' the SoS findings if he does not overturn the verdict. I am saying that my belief is that the verdict is unsustainable and I will continue to do all that I can to achieve its removal. The SoS is entitled to his views - as are you and I. Whatever his opinion, I will respect it for what it will be. His opinion. I don't necessarily have to agree with it it if differs from mine.
If I have appeared sarcastic in the past then please accept my apology. It was never by intent.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
JP, the unfortunate fact is that the original valid findings of the BoI were overturned by two AVMs – based on what? No-one has ever come up with an answer to that which made any sense, then or now. Critically, the original BoI key findings (ie not enough proof to substantiate the finding of “gross negligence”) were NOT found wanting by the House of Lords enquiry, nor the review of the case by a Scottish Sheriff to name but two investigations. Rather, they, and many others like myself, DID find the actions of the two now ex-AVMs (my then Senior Officers) wanting.
However, the MoD and the Government chose not to respond but maintained the traditional “stiff upper lip” of silence on the matter – “Keep your heads down, Chaps, it will all blow over” and all that. Now, as a former Desk Officer in the MoD, you and I both know full well just how much skull-duggery goes on behind closed doors in the MoD – as with any “big business” – it is the way the world works populated, as it is, by Homo Sapiens!
The stupidity of the AVMs, the MoD and the Government has resulted in a refusal to reappraise the situation in the light of, ironically, a lack of evidence. If the SoS gets leaned on (and please, don’t think I was born yesterday) and decides the AVMs were correct, expect this to go on. Wratten, Day, the MoD and the Government would all have gone up in my (and countless others estimation) had they just said “Sorry. Having reviewed the lack of evidence, we agree that “gross negligence” cannot be proved. What we will do is make sure that procedures are reviewed blah-de-blah-de-blah….”. So, please do stop your rantings. You simply make yourself to look as big a buffoon as the aforementioned AVMs et al. Ho hum!!!!
However, the MoD and the Government chose not to respond but maintained the traditional “stiff upper lip” of silence on the matter – “Keep your heads down, Chaps, it will all blow over” and all that. Now, as a former Desk Officer in the MoD, you and I both know full well just how much skull-duggery goes on behind closed doors in the MoD – as with any “big business” – it is the way the world works populated, as it is, by Homo Sapiens!
The stupidity of the AVMs, the MoD and the Government has resulted in a refusal to reappraise the situation in the light of, ironically, a lack of evidence. If the SoS gets leaned on (and please, don’t think I was born yesterday) and decides the AVMs were correct, expect this to go on. Wratten, Day, the MoD and the Government would all have gone up in my (and countless others estimation) had they just said “Sorry. Having reviewed the lack of evidence, we agree that “gross negligence” cannot be proved. What we will do is make sure that procedures are reviewed blah-de-blah-de-blah….”. So, please do stop your rantings. You simply make yourself to look as big a buffoon as the aforementioned AVMs et al. Ho hum!!!!
Sir William Wratten
Sir William is available for after dinner speeches by visiting:
w ww.jla.co.uk/ArtistsIndex/Artists/1/WrattenWilliam1.asp?Letter=
(Google's a wonderful thing)
Might be worth investing a few grand to ask some 'interesting questions' after the next report is released
w ww.jla.co.uk/ArtistsIndex/Artists/1/WrattenWilliam1.asp?Letter=
(Google's a wonderful thing)
Might be worth investing a few grand to ask some 'interesting questions' after the next report is released
Excellent news, Brian, well done!
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will put some pressure on the Brown/Brownes as he has given me a written promise that, when he comes to power, he will reinstate the pilots' reputations (unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Re. BBill, from the link:
ACM Sir William Wratten GBE
Gulf War RAF CommanderTopics inc: Teambuilding and negotiating.
Originally leading a squadron of Phantom fighters, Sir William rose to Air Chief Marshal with control of aircraft, 40,000 staff and a £1.7bn budget. He was also responsible for training standards, operational preparedness and morale. After the first Gulf War he served as the link between the Government, British Aerospace and the Saudi armed forces on a multi-million pound defence contract.Teambuilding?
Morale???
Hmmmmm...........
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will put some pressure on the Brown/Brownes as he has given me a written promise that, when he comes to power, he will reinstate the pilots' reputations (unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Re. BBill, from the link:
ACM Sir William Wratten GBE
Gulf War RAF CommanderTopics inc: Teambuilding and negotiating.Originally leading a squadron of Phantom fighters, Sir William rose to Air Chief Marshal with control of aircraft, 40,000 staff and a £1.7bn budget. He was also responsible for training standards, operational preparedness and morale. After the first Gulf War he served as the link between the Government, British Aerospace and the Saudi armed forces on a multi-million pound defence contract.Teambuilding?
Morale???
Hmmmmm...........
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
The SofS at the relevant time was Malcolm Rifkind. He changed his view some considerable time ago. As has the then Prime Minister.
You haven't felt obliged to end your 'campaign' have you?
Truth be told, we aren't desperately interested in the opinions of individuals. At least only in so far as the reputations of two fine young pilots be judged precisely in accordance with the rules extant at the time.
As another said. "Let right be done."
But Brian Dixon , are you really saying that if the SofS does not agree with your opinion you will reject his findings? And if so, are you intending to say that to him before he grants you and your supporters the interview? And if so, why should he bother?
You haven't felt obliged to end your 'campaign' have you?
Truth be told, we aren't desperately interested in the opinions of individuals. At least only in so far as the reputations of two fine young pilots be judged precisely in accordance with the rules extant at the time.
As another said. "Let right be done."
PPRuNe Pop
I totally agree with your sentiments - and those of everybody else who has congratulated Brian, to say nothing of all the others who have contributed positively to this encouraging outcome.
But I haven't seen any mention so far of PPRuNe itself - which must surely have been a very significant factor in this campaign. As it also has in affairs like Headley Court, Tul Bahadur Pun, Hercules ESF, and the ongoing Nimrod saga, to mention just a few. Time was, not so very long ago, when these things just wouldn't have happened.
So, you guys up there in the PPRuNe Head Shed - take a big bow, and please accept the gratitude of this PPRuNer.
airsound
I totally agree with your sentiments - and those of everybody else who has congratulated Brian, to say nothing of all the others who have contributed positively to this encouraging outcome.
But I haven't seen any mention so far of PPRuNe itself - which must surely have been a very significant factor in this campaign. As it also has in affairs like Headley Court, Tul Bahadur Pun, Hercules ESF, and the ongoing Nimrod saga, to mention just a few. Time was, not so very long ago, when these things just wouldn't have happened.
So, you guys up there in the PPRuNe Head Shed - take a big bow, and please accept the gratitude of this PPRuNer.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 9th Dec 2007 at 10:01. Reason: Correcting idiotic error in Mr Pun's name. Sorry, Sir!
Well said Airsound, and a heartfelt 'Hear Hear' for PPRuNe Pop and all at PPRuNe Towers! No-one in the corridors of power will ever admit to it but the proof is in the pudding and campaigns fought on these threads change minds and outcomes, with the list growing ever longer. The status of this Site, and especially this Forum, is a tribute to Danny and everyone who founded it, and to all who have posted since. We may well differ on issues, but that is the lifeblood of debate, and on many we are all united when it is a clear case of right versus wrong.
I have had the pleasure to meet Pop and was honoured with the award of PPRuNe wings in the field. I wear them with pride to this day!
I have had the pleasure to meet Pop and was honoured with the award of PPRuNe wings in the field. I wear them with pride to this day!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot 'n' High
You stated that the "original valid findings of the BOI were overturned by two AVM's."
The BOI was convened by AOC 1 Gp (an AVM). This Inquiry was number 13 in the list of ongoing BOI's (plus a few Unit Inquiries). The President of the BOI was appointed by the AOC to conduct the Inquiry on his behalf.
This BOI felt unable to agree on a cause for the accident but suggested that "the crew had selected an inappropriate rate of climb to clear the Mull". The AOC was convinced that the appropriate action that the crew should have taken was to climb at maximum rate until at or above Safety Altitude whilst turning away from the high ground that they knew lay ahead. Such a course of action when facing IMC at low level is drummed into all aircrew throughout their training. Failure to do so, as suggested by the BOI,
amounted to Gross negligence.
This viewpoint was shared by the AOC STC (an ACM) as the Reviewing Officer, and by the CAS (another ACM) who also reviewed the proceedings before publication.
The AAIB Inspector stated that there was "no evidence of any technical malfunction which could have caused the crash." Famously he went on to add "that doesn't mean there wasn't one". True, but so is the corollary - it doesn't mean there was one either.
Because there was no evidence of any technical malfunction there was no fleetwide programme of rectification or modification in order to prevent a further occurence because no technical fault had been identified as the cause of the crash.
It is now more than 13 1/2 years since this tragedy - years that have seen the commitments placed on the Chinook fleet increase markedly. They are operating under conditions that have not been seen by the RAF since WW2; with limited resources and under constant threat of hostile action. This length of time is greater than the combined durations of the Boer War, WW1 and WW2 - yet there has been no repetition of this tragedy.
You stated that the "original valid findings of the BOI were overturned by two AVM's."
The BOI was convened by AOC 1 Gp (an AVM). This Inquiry was number 13 in the list of ongoing BOI's (plus a few Unit Inquiries). The President of the BOI was appointed by the AOC to conduct the Inquiry on his behalf.
This BOI felt unable to agree on a cause for the accident but suggested that "the crew had selected an inappropriate rate of climb to clear the Mull". The AOC was convinced that the appropriate action that the crew should have taken was to climb at maximum rate until at or above Safety Altitude whilst turning away from the high ground that they knew lay ahead. Such a course of action when facing IMC at low level is drummed into all aircrew throughout their training. Failure to do so, as suggested by the BOI,
amounted to Gross negligence.
This viewpoint was shared by the AOC STC (an ACM) as the Reviewing Officer, and by the CAS (another ACM) who also reviewed the proceedings before publication.
The AAIB Inspector stated that there was "no evidence of any technical malfunction which could have caused the crash." Famously he went on to add "that doesn't mean there wasn't one". True, but so is the corollary - it doesn't mean there was one either.
Because there was no evidence of any technical malfunction there was no fleetwide programme of rectification or modification in order to prevent a further occurence because no technical fault had been identified as the cause of the crash.
It is now more than 13 1/2 years since this tragedy - years that have seen the commitments placed on the Chinook fleet increase markedly. They are operating under conditions that have not been seen by the RAF since WW2; with limited resources and under constant threat of hostile action. This length of time is greater than the combined durations of the Boer War, WW1 and WW2 - yet there has been no repetition of this tragedy.
cazatou, thank you for so succinctly summarizing the events that lay behind this thread. Whether or not your summary is accurate I will leave others better qualified than I to assess, but taking what you say at face value perfectly justifies the position that Brian Dixon et al take, that this infamous verdict be overturned without delay. Let us all hope that be soon.
So in the absence of proof that would mean both pilots were totally innocent of any blame, they must be ipso facto guilty of Gross Negligence? What is emerging in other threads is indeed a story of Gross Negligence, strung out over a much longer period than
but that Gross Negligence has as yet meant no loss of reputation, honour or post of any senior officer at the Ministry of Defence where it continues as the complete breakdown of the Military Airworthiness system.
The AAIB Inspector stated that there was "no evidence of any technical malfunction which could have caused the crash." Famously he went on to add "that doesn't mean there wasn't one". True, but so is the corollary - it doesn't mean there was one either.
the combined durations of the Boer War, WW1 and WW2
Just a numbered other
Caz:
Neatly ignoring the fact that to do so would have exceeded the Chinook's pathetic iceing clearance and laid the pilots open to certain (and promised) disciplinary action.
I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end of this sorry matter, and that the slur on Jon and Rick, brought about with such slim evidence, is soon to be removed.
I salute all, from both sides who have argued with civility and reason. I hope, Caz that you can at last see that no matter what your personal opinion is of the cause, that there will never be sufficient evidence to uphold Wratten and Day's vindictiveness.
Brian: BZ you irritating sod. Especially for getting under my MP's skin.
The AOC was convinced that the appropriate action that the crew should have taken was to climb at maximum rate until at or above Safety Altitude whilst turning away from the high ground that they knew lay ahead. Such a course of action when facing IMC at low level is drummed into all aircrew throughout their training. Failure to do so, as suggested by the BOI,
amounted to Gross negligence.
amounted to Gross negligence.
I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end of this sorry matter, and that the slur on Jon and Rick, brought about with such slim evidence, is soon to be removed.
I salute all, from both sides who have argued with civility and reason. I hope, Caz that you can at last see that no matter what your personal opinion is of the cause, that there will never be sufficient evidence to uphold Wratten and Day's vindictiveness.
Brian: BZ you irritating sod. Especially for getting under my MP's skin.
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 Cazatou,
The fact that the BoI felt unable to agree (your words) may have been because of the limited amount of available evidence that they had to work with (I don’t know because I wasn’t there). However, what is clear is that the BoI President adhered to the rule in place – that in order to find deceased aircrew of negligence, there had to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
So which was it? Was there technical failure, or wasn't there? I recall the AAIB Inspector stating that the pre-impact serviceability of the aircraft couldn't be positively determined.
Absolutely no doubt whatsoever? Nowhere near close.
Also, to answer your point about there being no repeat of the tragedy:
Whilst no loss of life, there are still problems with the FADEC. See this, taken from the Chinook Display Team Website:
The Biggin Hill Air Show, 02 - 03 June 2007- High Temperatures and High Drama
In a remarkable change from the wet weather at Southend, Dave, Andy and Bob enjoyed a scorching Biggin Hill International Air Fair over the weekend of June 2 nd and 3 rd with sunshine all day long on both days and temperatures in the high 20s. This was a busy show for the team with the aircraft being involved in three separate phases of the varied flying program. It provided a jump platform for the Princess of Wales' Royal Regt "Tigers" Parachute Display Team, then got involved in the RAF Role Demonstration, and went on to perform it’s own individual display.
Saturday’s solo display provided an unexpected event for the crew in the form of a "FADEC" (engine computer control) malfunction approximately half way through the routine. This occurred when the aircraft was at one of its more extreme attitudes and, once recovered to "straight and level", the problem was assessed fully and as a precautionary measure the remainder of Saturday’s display had to be aborted. With groundcrew in attendance the fault was rectified though, so come Sunday the crew were able to repeat their appearance with the Tigers, and during the Role Demo, and this time completed a full solo display to a crowd estimated as being 45,000 strong on each day.
Arkroyal - Hope you are well. Glad to have been of service
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited following the wise counsel from BEagle - Thank you
The fact that the BoI felt unable to agree (your words) may have been because of the limited amount of available evidence that they had to work with (I don’t know because I wasn’t there). However, what is clear is that the BoI President adhered to the rule in place – that in order to find deceased aircrew of negligence, there had to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
The AAIB Inspector stated that there was "no evidence of any technical malfunction which could have caused the crash." Famously he went on to add "that doesn't mean there wasn't one". True, but so is the corollary - it doesn't mean there was one either.
Absolutely no doubt whatsoever? Nowhere near close.
Also, to answer your point about there being no repeat of the tragedy:
Whilst no loss of life, there are still problems with the FADEC. See this, taken from the Chinook Display Team Website:
The Biggin Hill Air Show, 02 - 03 June 2007- High Temperatures and High Drama
In a remarkable change from the wet weather at Southend, Dave, Andy and Bob enjoyed a scorching Biggin Hill International Air Fair over the weekend of June 2 nd and 3 rd with sunshine all day long on both days and temperatures in the high 20s. This was a busy show for the team with the aircraft being involved in three separate phases of the varied flying program. It provided a jump platform for the Princess of Wales' Royal Regt "Tigers" Parachute Display Team, then got involved in the RAF Role Demonstration, and went on to perform it’s own individual display.
Saturday’s solo display provided an unexpected event for the crew in the form of a "FADEC" (engine computer control) malfunction approximately half way through the routine. This occurred when the aircraft was at one of its more extreme attitudes and, once recovered to "straight and level", the problem was assessed fully and as a precautionary measure the remainder of Saturday’s display had to be aborted. With groundcrew in attendance the fault was rectified though, so come Sunday the crew were able to repeat their appearance with the Tigers, and during the Role Demo, and this time completed a full solo display to a crowd estimated as being 45,000 strong on each day.
Arkroyal - Hope you are well. Glad to have been of service
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited following the wise counsel from BEagle - Thank you
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 9th Dec 2007 at 16:25.