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 5th Jan 2008, 18:24
  #3061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
But what is a "squark"
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 18:29
  #3062 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Courtney,
and your point is what?

The rules, Sir. Why are they absurd?

Kind Regards.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 18:53
  #3063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 57
Posts: 2,023
Courtney, I am glad you have told us your history. It actually makes it easier to accept that you are 'entitled' to be listened to by your credibility and experience. The rules may be absurd and they may have needed a change. However the fact is that they were in place to protect people who were not around to defend themselves. They WERE in place and the rules are the rules, even if they are stupid (in your view). If Jon was your student, then good on you, you helped to train and develop a good pilot and a smashing bloke out of work too. You should be proud.
Many things in law are disputed by different parts of society. Drugs, human rights, speed limits, breathalyser limits etc etc. That said, we operate within the laws at the time and you can't deviate from that whatever your views. A cockpit voice recorder could easily have put this case to bed years ago. But there wasn't a one there. Jon and Rick could have been reckless, then again there could have been a malfunction. Whatever the answer, even if it is only a 1% chance, we can't be SURE. Even if this was to happen to YOU, right NOW and us knowing your views on the 'rules'. The aviation community would give you the benefit of the doubt. We have to!!! Now you can come out with a smart retort I'm sure, but I don't mind. Enjoy your views, as I said in private to JP, you are totally entitled.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 18:56
  #3064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
I find these past statements interesting from someone who now claims to be an ex-military 'QHI'.......(assumption on my part).

The bottom line fellas is that these two flew a fully servicable aircraft (no evidence has been found of any problems, including the engines) at high speed into a rock face killing 29 people.
Both Cook and Tapper were my students


AA

Last edited by Sand4Gold; 6th Jan 2008 at 05:56.
Sand4Gold is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 19:00
  #3065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
Both Cook and Tapper were my students, I flew SH under John Day.
Thank you courtney for at last laying your cards on the table. Having said that am I alone in wondering if the habit of judging the performances of the former, and a sense of loyalty to the latter, has left you boxed into a position which is at last under scrutiny? It would be a great man who could tacitly admit that to himself, if to no other. I feel that I do at least understand your position a little more now but, with respect, am still opposed to it as are all those who support Brian's endeavours to resolve this injustice.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 20:32
  #3066 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,171
Rick Cook was also previously my student, not that it makes any great difference, Jon Tapper wasn't. I also served SH under Day at Odiham.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 08:47
  #3067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
No, I have no loyalty to JD, quite the opposite really. I think that the scenarios you proffer are extremely unlikely, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were not in full control of this aircraft, and that Day does offer the most likely explanation. In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement. However, label them as you wish.
courtney is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 09:12
  #3068 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Good morning Courtney,
If I recall correctly, it was you who labelled the rules, not me.

I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but extremely unlikely (your opinion) is not absolutely no doubt whatsoever. The AAIB report states that engineering problems cannot be ruled out, so the pilots may have had a problem.

As with your opinion, I have no issue with John Day's. It is, however, a best guess - made with information known at that time, and a subjective interpretation of that information. It does not satisfy the criteria required to support a verdict of negligence.

In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
Why not?

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 10:41
  #3069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,524
courtney,

A few years ago, I made this contribution ----

" In 1986 I was President of a BoI concerning a Tornado fatal accident off Spurn Head. The crew was attempting, at night, to join up with another aircraft at around 2000ft, and during that procedure the aircraft impacted the sea. We had no clues for a couple of weeks, until a tape from London Radar revealed the aircraft's last two minute flight track, and that of the aircraft on which it was trying to approach. From the relative flight paths of the two aircraft, we (myself and the other Board members) 'concluded' that the crew had most likely become disorientated in the join-up manoeuvre, and that the pilot pointed the aircraft into the sea.

Without any tangible evidence from either the ADR (which was recovered, damaged to the extent of being of no use) or technical findings from the recovered wreckage, we all remained somewhat 'convinced' that the the crew 'probably' screwed up. BUT, we had nothing to show that this 'assumption' could be proved beyond doubt.

IAW the rules of the day, we could not apportion blame or negligence and our submission to the AOC was therefore, and rightly, an open verdict; both he and the CinC accepted the Board's finding.

Most people at the time, including most of the squadron aircrew, agreed with my Board's private view. However, there was also a 'universal' view that there could be no apportion of blame or negligence. There were lots of other conspirancy theories that could have been concocted (by conspiritors), but none could be substantiated. Ever."

With no doubt whatsoever, justice was done. I, and I believe most others, would have been very aggrieved had the reviewing officers disagreed. Along with the many others on this thread, I have difficulty comprehending your argument.

Last edited by jindabyne; 6th Jan 2008 at 11:05.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 10:49
  #3070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
And therein lies the difference between us, courtney. For most on this thread would avow the reverse: that the judgement should not escape from the rules, to protect those who cannot defend themselves from people like you who "know" the truth. In my 40 years of flying I have found that the most dangerous people are the ones who "know". Don't know- check. Can't check? Then you don't know!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 12:48
  #3071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Anology

Originally Posted by courtney
In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
The current discussion between Courtney et al, imho, is in some ways analagous to the O J Simpson cases where the crux was weight of evidence vs standard of proof, within the extant legal framework.
O J was found not guilty in a criminal court because the weight of evidence was not deemed to support the standard of proof required of beyond reasonable doubt (ca. 90% probability).
He was subsequently found to be culpable in a civil court because the standard of proof against the same weight of evidence was only on balance of probability (> 50% probability).
Did OJ Really do it, beyond any doubt whatsoever (100% certain)? Nobody knows the answer to that nor what really happened, although everyone will undoubtedly have their own opinion; it was not however the standard of proof required at the time in apportioning blame. It's exactly the same for this case.
If Courtney/Wratten/Day/MOD were permitted legally to apply a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt (or on balance of probability) then the judgement of gross negligence may well have been proven. The key point is that they were not entitled to reach that conclusion on the weight of evidence vs standard of proof required of beyond any doubt whatsoever (100% certain).
Courtney's hypothesis that a fully serviceable aircraft was negligently flown into a cliff face is simply not sufficiently supported by the weight of evidence to meet the required standard of proof. Quod erat demonstrandum.

TOG
Toxteth O'Grady is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 21:36
  #3072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Indeed the 'rules' meant that OJ couldn't be found guilty, but we all knew..............
courtney is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 08:26
  #3073 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Courtney,
The aircraft was deemed airworthy, but we all knew.....

Shall we leave the playground and get back to some meaningful debate?

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 08:33
  #3074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,524
courtney

Care to comment on my last post? Or do you think the reviewing officers were out of order?
jindabyne is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 10:11
  #3075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
jindabyne, I am not familliar with this incident. Brian, delighted to leave your playground.
courtney is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 14:08
  #3076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
courtney

Perhaps as an 'SH' man, you will recall a fatal chinook accident in the Falklands, when an aircraft nosed over, and crashed into the ground killing all those on board.

The only radio transmission being the middle part of a two word expletive.

Because this accident occurred in good weather, and was seen by a number of observers, 'pilot error' (and negligence) was immediately ruled out.

However, NO examination of the wreckage by W/C Pledger and his team was ever able to determine the technical cause.

There is also a well documented account of a US army CH47 completing an undemanded aerobatic manouvre. The crew were utterly powerless to stop it. Having survived to give their evidence, AGAIN no technical examination was able to determine the cause of their loss of control.

You may wish to consider whether absence of evidence can EVER be taken as evidence of absence.

In view of the results of ALL independent examinations of this case, which ALWAYS reach a conclusion opposite to the two Air Marshalls, it is pretty clear that they (and you) are the ones with their fingers stuck very firmly in their ears.

Not those of us on this side of the issue.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 15:14
  #3077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
OK for the final time.
This aircraft did not depart from controlled flight as in the other examples you quote. It was in full control when it met the Mull. If you are going to insist that some malfunction just happened to turn the aircraft towards high ground, put it IMC and then handed control back to the pilots.... then little green men or flying pigs would be more convincing.
courtney is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 15:42
  #3078 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Courtney,
I thought you had read this thread?

The discussions about the varied theories are just that. Best guess against the limited evidence available. You know, similar approach to that of Messrs Wratten and Day.

The point of the Campaign is that no one knows, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, what caused the aircraft to crash. No one is offering a theory as a substitue for the Reviewing Officers opinions. It may well be as you so eloquently argue, but without ADR and CVR, you cannot conclusively say so.

All we are doing is insisting that the MoD and RAF stick to the rules that you so despise.

Now, unless you can offer meaningful debate (as per Mr Purdey and Cazatou) close the playground gate on your way out. There's a good chap.

My best as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 17:21
  #3079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
Courtney,

"This aircraft did not depart from controlled flight as in the other examples you quote".................prove that to me and every other poster in here and ensure we are left with absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to what happened................bear in mind we want 100% FACT and no supposition

"It was in full control when it met the Mull."...............prove that to me and every other poster in here and ensure that we are left with absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to what happened.............bear in mind we want 100% FACT and no supposition.

Also bear in mind you have already agreed on many occasions that THERE IS DOUBT IN THIS CASE so I am not sure how you are going to answer the above without some outstanding spin
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 21:43
  #3080 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Guys and gals.

As the meeting with the SoS for Defence gets ever closer, about a week I think, might I suggest it would be wise to wind this current issue down. I am sure you will all see the sense of that.

Best to take a breather now and let us hope that Brian and his team will get the result we all want and they deserve.

Good luck to them.
PPRuNe Pop 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 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.