Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 10th Dec 2007, 22:39
  #2941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
davaar lad
By this I mean that Wratten and co. must have known that the verdict was wrong, if they were blind to that then surely it will have been clear to them that it would be controversial (understatement)
I don't think they imagined for one moment how controversial this would become.

Please remember, this was I believe, the very first BOI report that was released after John Major's government introduced 'Freedom of Information'. What a shock it must have been to them to see the amount of information the MOD were OBLIGED to release under the act.

I recall very well indeed how extremely unhappy, and evasive, MOD were!

They never expected anything more than a sanitised, classified, and abbreviated report to be released to anyone. That was the way it had always been. They certainly would not have suspected their deliberations would be repeated (and rejected!) under a Judge in a Fatal Accident Inquiry.

I am sure they never dreamed their perverse judgement could possibly be even examined, never mind challenged. Such was their arrogance in their ivory tower.

It's time.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2007, 14:10
  #2942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Brian Dixon. I have the impression from your earlier posts that your document of new evidence deals only with the technical aspects of this flight, and that it does not cover the airmanship aspects. Am I correct? With all good wishes PJ
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2007, 15:15
  #2943 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Mr Purdey,
As Lord O'Neill has already alluded to, the report is based on new evidence obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which relate to a number of points covering the airworthiness of the aircraft. Lord O'Neill also mentioned concerns over whether all the legal procedures adopted by the MoD over the years had been "appropriate".

I regret, that until the meeting between Lord O'Neill and Mr Browne takes place, I won't be making any comment as to the specific content of the report.

I'm sure you understand.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Edited for spelling

Last edited by Brian Dixon; 11th Dec 2007 at 20:43.
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2007, 18:26
  #2944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Brian Dixon. Yes, thanks. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 16:36
  #2945 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
fish

Boslandew:
If there is no evidence to prove gross negligence there is none to prove that it was not pilot error.
Quite the point we've been trying to make these past many years.

You'll not find one of us who cannot accept that there may well have been 'pilot error' involved in this tragedy.

We simply require the MOD to uphold the rules in force at the time: Deceased aircrew cannot be found guilty of Gross Negligence unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Their innocence, or otherwise is not for us or anyone to prove.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 17:04
  #2946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 70
Posts: 767
I post again on this thread after a long absence, although I have read it frequently.
First, Brian, sincere congratulations on what you have achieved - I hope that you have unlocked the door to final justice.
After such a long time it amazes me that people are still debating what happened on that fateful day. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. However, as has been pointed out many times before, an opinion is just that; it is not fact.
The truth of this issue is that there are only two men on this planet who know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what happened: Day and Wratten. So how can they know when the rest of us can only surmise? Is it because they are superior beings, or did they make an error of judgement at the time of the BOI, which is now perpetuated by gross arrogance?
1.3VStall is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 17:21
  #2947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Tiarna,

If you go back and read through this thread from start to finish you will find that Mr P has never once wavered in his belief that the crew on that day are guilty as charged, in fact go to post #2946 and see the underlying snipe if you want confirmation of my assertion.

I do not know Mr P, others here do, but if I were coming to this thread as a new member I would be hard pressed not to form the opinion that he was either Mr Wratten, Mr Day or a close relative as his continued belief in the correctness of this verdict has been unshakable.

I, like so many others in here fully respect his right to an opinion but how he remains so 100% certain after all the expert opinion voiced in here and on other forums is something I am still unable to get my head around.

Fingers crossed Brian that now the corner is turned the end of the road is in sight.

SFFP
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 20:01
  #2948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
The nature of the error that the crew was alleged to have made is very basic.
But these guys were not rookies.
Had these pilots offered me and my family a joy ride on that day, in those conditions, on that route, in that aircraft but without the security team onboard I would unhesitatingly have accepted the opportunity.
I have the unshakeable belief that the crash happened in that location not because of pilot error nor the aircraft but because of who was onboard.
There are plenty of experienced people who have been looking into other aspects but I feel obliged, in the absence of anyone else leading this line of investigation, to explore the possibility fully, so dire are the consequences for us all if this was the case.
Hence, I am confident that nothing that can be revealed concerning the details of their tasking and the planning for this flight could possibly harm national security more than not considering them fully from this perspective and furthermore do not believe that any such further details would reveal anything that would make the pilots appear in a worse light indeed, it could be the only way of fully clearing them as opposed to achieving this by a legal technicality.
It does a disservice to them to fear that full disclosure of any such activities would do otherwise.
Regarding the reliance upon demonstrating the unreliability of this particular aircraft, the post by Boslandew << The criteria say the reviewing officer's decision was based (and required to be based) on his own experience, judgement and opinion. The final sentence of Para 25 says, "It would be wrong to avoid such a finding (of negligence) on the basis of hypotheses for which there was no evidence and which were wholly implausible when tested against the known facts". >> does put what many would still think.
I hope you all enjoy the coming festive season and spare a thought for how many these guys have missed because of this crash.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 20:10
  #2949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Tiarna. A Private Messag is meant to be just that, and by putting my private comments to you on the wider post is a breach of contidentiality. Perhaps Pronepop will comment, but you can be assured that you will have no further contact with me. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 00:29
  #2950 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Square/Mark,
Good to hear from you.

I now have your contact details and will contact you at a more acceptable hour. It may be in your best interests to remove your mobile number from the web!

Thank you everyone else for your kind words of support.

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Last edited by Brian Dixon; 13th Dec 2007 at 00:41.
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 05:33
  #2951 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,188
Brian, very sound advice and I have removed it - as well as his private number which I can recover should you require them.

PPP
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 13:17
  #2952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Airmanship

Mr Purdey,
I notice from your last question to Mr Dixon that the question of Airmanship is still at the forefront of your mind?
From the tone of previous posts and you will see that I have come into this discussion at a late stage can I ask
1. Is it your assertion that if a pilot makes an inadvertent entry to unexpected cloud/IMC conditions that he/she should immediately climb to SA?
If your answer to the question is "yes" then we all need to look seriously at the way we conduct SAR / Ambulance/Police/SF ops and all the rest.
2. If in your experience the answer is "no, i'll assess the situation see if there are any gaps, can we go lower?, can we climb?, does it look brighter ahead?" How long would you wait before climbing to SA?
You may well have been around this buoy before, if you have; then I apologise, please indulge me.

with thanks

SMK
davaar lad is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 14:58
  #2953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Dear J Purdey

Your comments are noted as further unsolicited PM's from you would not be appreciated. In response to your post above I posted your message here because its general content does not differ from what you generally contribute openly towards the flight crew of the chinook. So I was not posting some very private comments from you. I had found your tactics questionable.

I suspected that by pm-ing me as you did was a means of discouraging a relatively newcomer from contributing further to this thread....your assertion was that I knew not what I was talking about and you therefore did and so I should shy away from your expertise...I repeat you fail to convinced me that I am wrong to believe that the flight crew have been unjustly held to account for the crash. I might add that another member pm-ed me informing me of having received a similar unsolicited pm from you with the same discouraging commentary. You are conducting yourself in a very inappropriate fashion and then crying foul for being challenged on your conduct.

In believing the flight crew have been wrongly branded I would even go so far as to consider that there may be some merit to what Seldomfitforpurpose suggests that the crash occured because of the airships cargo that day.

I would also like to point out to you that I have followed this topic for some considerable time before I felt sufficiently informed to make a comment. I do not know what caused the crash anymore than you do but what is certain is that the Families of the the crew carry a very heavy and unjustified burden. Perhaps your attention can be drawn to when I joined this forum/thread and the date of my first post.

Kind Regards
Tiarna

Last edited by tiarna; 13th Dec 2007 at 15:38.
tiarna is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 16:32
  #2954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

davaar lad. I hear what you say, but you probably agree with me that there is a world of difference between the extraordinarily gallant and high risk helo activities in SAR/ambulance/police flights and a routine transit flight, which this one was?
tiarna. I said that you will not hear from me again.
John Purdey is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 17:06
  #2955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
I hear what you say..chief

Thanks for getting back Mr Purdey, actually no I would not particularly agree, to me that "routine transit flight" would have been very important, the bottom line is always the same.
It's okay I did not expect you to answer the question because...you can't.
how about this one.
In your opinion: Are all CFIT incidents as a result of neglect (gross or otherwise)?

rgds

SMK
davaar lad is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 18:42
  #2956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 57
Posts: 1,998
I had the PM attempts earlier this year by JP. He didn't change my mind at all. However he has the right to contact you by PM, you don't have to reply. It is a free country...... just.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 20:34
  #2957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 50
TIARNA JAYTEETO
I too had the JP treatment earlier in the year with a PM. He obviously feels that it his mission in life to PM new or infrequent posters his views which I felt were smug, know all type comments, when it is obvious he knows nothing. I chose to bin it and forget it it till now. We are all entitled to our views including JP but most us prefer to air in public. Keep up the good work Brian and a Merry Xmas to all Lets hope Justice will out in 2008
dwhcomputers is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 20:59
  #2958 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi everyone,

I understand the frustration caused when receiving PMs from Mr Purdey, but don't worry. I don't wish to speak on his behalf, but it may be that he believes as strongly in his version of events as I do in mine (which he is entitled to do).

How he chooses to go about business is a matter for him. You can always ignore or delete the PM.

Let's not fall out over it. Remember - it is the season of goodwill and all that!

I would simply ask that you keep yourselves ready and prepared for a call to arms early in the New Year, should the need arise.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2007, 16:13
  #2959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Hi Brian Dixon. Thanks for your courteous and balanced (as ever) comments above. I sincerely wish you a fair hearing when you see SofS in the New Year, and meanwhile the Compliments of the season to you and to yours. Over and Out. JP

Last edited by John Purdey; 15th Dec 2007 at 19:22.
John Purdey is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 11:31
  #2960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Having read the various pots on this matter, is the objective here to clear the aircrew of gross negligence and substitute simple negligence?
courtney is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.