Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[courtney]

Having read the various pots on this matter, is the objective here to clear the aircrew of gross negligence and substitute simple negligence?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Courtney,

If, as you say you have read the thread you should be able to answer your own question...............

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Courtney.

The rules in place at the time of the accident stated that in order to find deceased aircrew guilty of negligence (degree of negligence not specified) there has to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Therefore, as there are several areas of doubt, the negligence slur (on all levels) against the pilots should be removed.

That is the aim of the campaign.

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[walter kennedy]

I don’t know if Courtney meant it this way but his comment sums up the scope of the “Campaign” rather well!
.
A security team gets whacked, the drivers get the blame, and the obvious forum for discussion on the topic is constrained to just getting their names cleared – or as Courtney’s post implies, cleared a bit because, I say, clearing their names on a legal technicality is not getting them full justice.
.
There is plenty of evidence, real and circumstantial, that they were involved in an activity near a landing area on the Mull that has not been disclosed;
And the conduct of the various inquiries gives the impression of a cover up - a particular example being the weather situation whereby helicopter crew in the area at the time were not called upon in the BOI; the conditions that the crew of ZD576 were in were misrepresented fundamentally, having that they were in bad met conditions when in fact they were in clear air, but with the features of the immediate landmass obscured by mist right on that landmass – a problem of judging range to it that would not have been a problem if they had not been approaching it closely with a purpose.
Quite different to the scenario of a crew disorientated within cloud.

[courtney]

Thank you both. I have to say that I cannot detect any evidence of secret agendas and if indeed there were any then the aircraft would still have to be operated in a safe way. Also clearing the crew of liability seems rather difficult for surely all the evidence points to a impact with high terrain at high speed in poor weather. Certainly one can argue that absolute evidence is not possible without flight and cockpit recorders and that the findings broke with the tradition of not finding deceased crew guilty of negligence, but it was probably time for this quaint tradition to be binned. Certainly there are many different views expressed and many contrary pieces of evidence, but picking through it is pretty clear that the conditions were very poor, the aircraft was being flown at high speed in controlled flight towards high ground, that the crew knew of that hazard or should have done as the nav system was accurate. Looks like pretty risky stuff?

[dervish]

Courtney

I seldom post here but do follow the threads. I suspect I am not alone in wondering why you have gone from a benign first post on this thread to one which repeats the MoD party line, so quickly.

You assert the conditions were poor, the aircraft was at high speed, repeat the CFIT theory and state the nav system was accurate. How the BoI and AAIB must have missed this first hand insight!

But, as you say, there is contrary evidence. Much of it points to known technical problems with the aircraft. It would seem from the MoD’s own records that their airworthiness experts at Boscombe Down didn’t think the aircraft should be flying. While you are entitled to your view, I share the feeling that this clear evidence, in addition to the contradictions you mention, is not sufficient to make a judgment against the pilots.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Courtney,
you say:

Also clearing the crew of liability seems rather difficult

No it isn't. The rules were broken in sullying their reputations with a negligence slur. Therefore the negligence verdict should be removed.

all the evidence points to a impact with high terrain at high speed in poor weather

No it doesn't. Yes, the aircraft impacted with the ground. High speed? - the first simulation was flawed and the second gave an operating speed within normal operating limits. Poor weather? Not according to the only witness looking from the same direction as the pilots.

Certainly one can argue that absolute evidence is not possible without flight and cockpit recorders

Hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever then, is it?

but it was probably time for this quaint tradition to be binned

I take it you are referring to the AP3207 – RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, page 9. I recall that being the law at the time. Hardly 'quaint'.

Certainly there are many different views expressed and many contrary pieces of evidence

Again, hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever then.

but picking through it is pretty clear that the conditions were very poor, the aircraft was being flown at high speed in controlled flight towards high ground,

See above.

Looks like pretty risky stuff

Flying the Mk2 Chinook in 1994 was risky stuff. That's why the test pilots refused.

If you can find hard evidence to support your views (of which I have no problem, by the way), you might like to get them to the MoD fairly sharpish. They may be needing them soon.

The bottom line is that, as there were no witnesses or survivors, nor were there any accident data recorders or cockpit voice recorders, then one cannot be absolutely certain as to what happened. Therefore the only sensible conclusion is that the cause of the accident be listed as not positively determined.

Have a good New Year.

My best, as always,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Tandemrotor]

courtney

Certainly one can argue that absolute evidence is not possible without flight and cockpit recorders

In fact, "one can argue that", "without flight and cockpit recorders", or survivors, or eyewitnesses, or radar traces, or radio transmissions, or psychic assistance...

Very little evidence is available AT ALL

So some people are prepared to guess.

But not many!

[BEagle]

The cause may have been CFIT, software failure, weird Wally's little green men with their wacky wirelesses, a tractor beam from the planet Tharg......

But no-one knows beyond any doubt whatsoever!

Which is the whole point - Wratten and Day's verdict is clearly not backed up with sufficient evicence.

[8-15fromOdium]

The bottom line is that, as there were no witnesses or survivors, nor were there any accident data recorders or cockpit voice recorders, then one cannot be absolutely certain as to what happened. Therefore the only sensible conclusion is that the cause of the accident be listed as not positively determined.

Brian I think you have just saved the SoS a lot of work with that summary.

[courtney]

Wow, you guy's certainly get riled. What I don't understand is why haven't we had multiple Chinooks throwing themselves into rocks. There was plenty of evidence to show that the aircraft was in a high pitch and power setting, rotated nose up just before impact and impacted at high speed. The nav system was accurate. There were witnesses in the area. It seems that none of you will accept the obvious, that clearing the pilots names has become an obsession. To restate an earliier contributor, what were they doing at that speed, at that level in those conditions? If they had any technical failure then they didn't give themselves any room for manouver. This was not a hostile operation, they had the option of re routing, slowing down or following the coastline. John Day was an SH comander in Ireland, he knows about operating helis in bad weather. He and Wratten had no axe to grind here, they would not deliberately endanger this or other heli crews on this or other Chinook operations by trying to cover anything up. Flying the Chinook in 94 was no more risky than any other SH heli. The Flight safety manual does not lay down the law. And far to many selective quotes gentlemen, you'll be believing the Sheriff and the House of Lords soon as fonts of wisdom in matters aviation.

[Brian Dixon]

As I said, Courtney, I respect your views.

Mine are different.

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[8-15fromOdium]

Courtney,

Is there doubt as to the cause of this dreadful accident ? Yes or No?

[Tandemrotor]

courtney

You obviously haven't spent too long looking at this subject. Let me remind you of a posting from a couple of pages back:

I'm sure you will remember what they wrote:
Quote:
The Board was unable to positively determine the sequence of events leading up to the accident, and therefore concluded that although it is likely that Flt Lt Tapper Made an error of judgement in the conduct of the attempted climb over the Mull of Kintyre, it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence
and:
Quote:
The Board concluded there were no human failings with respect to Flt Lt Cook

This was the position of the 3 RAF officers (2 of whom were experienced-and recent-Chinook pilots) who actually conducted the investigation on behalf of the RAF.

You obviously know something they did not, and/or are using a different standard of proof.

Please enlighten us.

What a coincidence you have only appeared on Pprune in the last 24 hours, and shortly before the SoS reconsiders this case! Weren't you interested in the Mull before??

Some of us have been on the case of this miscarriage for the last 13 and a half years.

I guess we just won't go away!

[earswentpop]

Surely not 'that' Courtney'?

Hello Courtney,

Just wondering if you've spent much time "... holding at Golf", as in Deci APC? If so, how are the boys? If not, kindly disregard; welcome to the Thread.

Regards,

EWP

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Ears,

I am of the opinion that we have yet another manifestation of JP .............it's just uncanny how having only just joined Prune he/she is straight into the Chinook thread with an MOD approved diatribe..........

Brian,

Best wishes for 2008

[courtney]

No sorry ears wrong person. Ex SH and CFS then airlines. Yet to meet a fellow SH pilot in ops or training who doesn't agree that the cause here is extremely unlikely to be anything other than pilot error, that includes a member of the board. There will always be those who see otherwise of course thats life but arguing semantics and the finer points of manuals and the Sheriffs opinion cannot excuse what happened. The board were constrained in what they could say or report, to say that one of the pilots 'made an error of judgement' is as far as they could go in condemnation, the other pilot could be sleeping it would seem. The two senior officers were free to say what the board couldn't. I don't think that one can reasonably clear the pilots of culpability, you can argue all sorts of possibilities and circumstances but they are tenuous at best. To demand absolution for the pilots because of no absolute proof will no longer work. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. In this case there is no proof of any problem with the aircraft or nav sysytems and if there were they should'nt have beeen where they were. They were responsible for the safety of the aircraft and those aboard it and they failed in that duty.

[Boslandew]

Courtney
I think most contributors accept that the possible/probable cause was pilot error. Whats missing is the evidence that there was 'absolutely no doubt' which is necessary for a verdict of gross negligence.

The whole thrust of this thread seeks to have the verdict of 'gross negligence' overturned because there is no absolute proof of responsibility and thus to remove the stain on the reputations of two pilots. Its curious that the same standards of absolute proof (or any proof) do not seem to be necessary when casting contemptuous slurs on the integrity of John Day and William Wratten. Further, why is anyone who expresses a different view from the mainstream so often seen as merely spouting the MOD line or as an apologist for the Air Marshals?

Boslandew

[Tandemrotor]

courtney

It would appear you don't understand the process. I am surprised!

The board were constrained in what they could say or report,

W/C Pulford, S/L Gilday, and their engineer colleague on the Board of Inquiry, had a duty to find negligence, where the evidence supported it, and where the standard of proof was satisfied.

They did not so find!

(Presumably because they knew, as you have just pointed out, they were dealing with what they 'thought' was 'LIKELY' rather than what was 'certain'?)

If you wish, I shall retrieve W/C Pulford's testimony on PRECISELY this point, which he gave to the FAI.

As we know, Wrattan and Day were more cavalier with their interpretation of the standard of proof required.

Yours is simply a regurgitated version of a discredited suggestion. It appears you have swallowed the 'propaganda' churned out by the MOD in their desperation to disguise the 'leap' to negligence in the comments of the AMs.

Or you are simply mischievous.

Please try to limit your comments to what you know as 'fact' rather than simply regurgitating MOD 'mistruths'. It saves time that way!

Regards T.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Courtney

"If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck."

The whole thrust of the argument is precisely that, PROBABLY!

The required level of proof to arrive at the verdict reached is simply not there as there were NO witness's to the actual crash, no flight data evidence, in fact not a shred of evidence to prove conclusively what you suggest.

That said if you were to ask most of us looking to have this verdict over turned what we THINK happened then I for one would have to agree that what you suggest is the most probable cause but as there is not one single person on this planet today who ACTUALLY knows what happened that fateful day you surely must agree that the required level of proof required has not been satisfied........................although if you are who I think you are you will never ever admit to that