Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding GM’s post - you “regulars” are missing the point that this is how it appears to many at first sight:
If you do the chart work and get a grasp of just how close in the waypoint change was made; then follow the argument that the turn, at that point, to 035M appears deliberate (as per handling pilots course selector) and maintained until a few seconds before impact then the view expressed by GM is to be expected by anyone having a first look at this crash – for one, they evidently had some degree of control at waypoint change and that was already unnecessarily close for this “ferry” flight as I have argued recently and GM makes the general point of the dangers in these areas under those conditions.
Without good reason to go in there (I think they did have one) it does not look good just relying upon the case for the a/c being unreliable.
.
While you castigate him for not having reviewed the numerous posts by others more knowledgeable, seemingly expecting every visitor to this thread to follow the party whip, many of the arguments you use for the alleged unreliability of the a/c do seem unfounded, unconvincing or exaggerated and thus leave any inquiring mind unsatisfied; for an extreme example ExGrunt’s last post::
<<… A little while later it is found upside down in a ditch by the Z bend, with the brakes and steering disconnected and the engine management system burnt out. It subsequently turns out that driving instructors are refusing to drive this type of vehicle and that the owners are suing the manufacturers of the engine management system because it is not fit for purpose.>>
Not quite that clear cut was it?
.
And there was that comment from PPRuNe Pop re the credentials of contributors on this thread:
<<very senior officers, engineers, Chinooks pilots and people who are well able to offer definitive views on the subject>>
I have no doubt of the quality in terms of experience and skill of many of the “regular” contributors and, despite the tone of some of their replies in my direction, I do respect this; further, I am sure that there are many others behind the scenes who advise the Campaign Group; however, I find it very frustrating that they appear to have gagged themselves by following the apparent strategy of not digging any deeper in certain areas in case of either compromising the idea of “nothing can be proven” or embarrassing unnecessarily the MOD (by “unnecessarily” I mean something that is considered sensitive, to say defence, that you may not thus far consider having any bearing on the crash and therefore, understandably perhaps, do not think necessary to make public).
As an example for what more could be established, let us look at one parameter that pilots of any Mk of Chinook could have addressed as could the assemblage of experience mentioned above – it is something that could on its own contribute to an understanding of their approach to the critical region – it is the power setting as found:
(From the AAIB report)
fuel flows for the two units at the point of electrical power supply loss, 251 and 254lb/hr (114 & 115 kg/hr);
N1 values close to 93% and 91% for No 1 and No 2 respectively (70% torque);
“Internal settings found after the accident confirmed correct operation for most of the HMA elements and suggested matched power demands for both engines at the time of impact, at an intermediate level that possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre immediately pre-impact.”
A couple of questions arise:
1. People like me could get quite the wrong idea from grappling with the descriptions available of such engine systems – I thought that to get them so closely matched required a finite time in a steady state to allow either the FADEC or the pilot (via beep trim) to get them so close.
Is this generally the case? If so, is the AAIB correct regarding the intermediate level (that it possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre …)? What exactly do they mean by “intermediate” in this case?
.
2. Are these figures consistent with slowing down? If not, are they typical for any recognised state (bearing in mind their alt, all up weight, etc)?
.
It is difficult for a lay person to interpret the performance charts for Chinooks and so the expert answers would be welcomed by anyone trying to analyse this crash for whatever reason.
.
The above is just one example of something that could have been explored more deeply by now. I personally do not believe that these pilots would have made simple mistakes of airmanship and so further examination should not weaken the case that the group is making. On one hand, the exploration of the meaning of several (thus far) apparently anomalous parameters could result in certain “conspiracy theories” being brought to a close; on the other hand, a hitherto undisclosed activity could be exposed – either way, no harm to your cause – and possibly a path to real justice.
If you do the chart work and get a grasp of just how close in the waypoint change was made; then follow the argument that the turn, at that point, to 035M appears deliberate (as per handling pilots course selector) and maintained until a few seconds before impact then the view expressed by GM is to be expected by anyone having a first look at this crash – for one, they evidently had some degree of control at waypoint change and that was already unnecessarily close for this “ferry” flight as I have argued recently and GM makes the general point of the dangers in these areas under those conditions.
Without good reason to go in there (I think they did have one) it does not look good just relying upon the case for the a/c being unreliable.
.
While you castigate him for not having reviewed the numerous posts by others more knowledgeable, seemingly expecting every visitor to this thread to follow the party whip, many of the arguments you use for the alleged unreliability of the a/c do seem unfounded, unconvincing or exaggerated and thus leave any inquiring mind unsatisfied; for an extreme example ExGrunt’s last post::
<<… A little while later it is found upside down in a ditch by the Z bend, with the brakes and steering disconnected and the engine management system burnt out. It subsequently turns out that driving instructors are refusing to drive this type of vehicle and that the owners are suing the manufacturers of the engine management system because it is not fit for purpose.>>
Not quite that clear cut was it?
.
And there was that comment from PPRuNe Pop re the credentials of contributors on this thread:
<<very senior officers, engineers, Chinooks pilots and people who are well able to offer definitive views on the subject>>
I have no doubt of the quality in terms of experience and skill of many of the “regular” contributors and, despite the tone of some of their replies in my direction, I do respect this; further, I am sure that there are many others behind the scenes who advise the Campaign Group; however, I find it very frustrating that they appear to have gagged themselves by following the apparent strategy of not digging any deeper in certain areas in case of either compromising the idea of “nothing can be proven” or embarrassing unnecessarily the MOD (by “unnecessarily” I mean something that is considered sensitive, to say defence, that you may not thus far consider having any bearing on the crash and therefore, understandably perhaps, do not think necessary to make public).
As an example for what more could be established, let us look at one parameter that pilots of any Mk of Chinook could have addressed as could the assemblage of experience mentioned above – it is something that could on its own contribute to an understanding of their approach to the critical region – it is the power setting as found:
(From the AAIB report)
fuel flows for the two units at the point of electrical power supply loss, 251 and 254lb/hr (114 & 115 kg/hr);
N1 values close to 93% and 91% for No 1 and No 2 respectively (70% torque);
“Internal settings found after the accident confirmed correct operation for most of the HMA elements and suggested matched power demands for both engines at the time of impact, at an intermediate level that possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre immediately pre-impact.”
A couple of questions arise:
1. People like me could get quite the wrong idea from grappling with the descriptions available of such engine systems – I thought that to get them so closely matched required a finite time in a steady state to allow either the FADEC or the pilot (via beep trim) to get them so close.
Is this generally the case? If so, is the AAIB correct regarding the intermediate level (that it possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre …)? What exactly do they mean by “intermediate” in this case?
.
2. Are these figures consistent with slowing down? If not, are they typical for any recognised state (bearing in mind their alt, all up weight, etc)?
.
It is difficult for a lay person to interpret the performance charts for Chinooks and so the expert answers would be welcomed by anyone trying to analyse this crash for whatever reason.
.
The above is just one example of something that could have been explored more deeply by now. I personally do not believe that these pilots would have made simple mistakes of airmanship and so further examination should not weaken the case that the group is making. On one hand, the exploration of the meaning of several (thus far) apparently anomalous parameters could result in certain “conspiracy theories” being brought to a close; on the other hand, a hitherto undisclosed activity could be exposed – either way, no harm to your cause – and possibly a path to real justice.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davaar lad
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.
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)
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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,
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
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.
Just a numbered other
Boslandew:
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.
If there is no evidence to prove gross negligence there is none to prove that it was not pilot error.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
tiarna. I said that you will not hear from me again.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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 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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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,
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.