Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is easy to treat courtney’s posts with a degree of suspicion – always general in his comments, rarely ‘technically’ specific unless in ‘paste’ mode. I can certainly understand why a non-aviator would spell ‘squawk’ phonetically as ‘squark’, but not from someone who claims to have 14000+ hours military/civil.
Then we have the
- maybe ROG is right.
I know, I’m being……….
AA
P.S. courtney is right about one thing though - we are covering old ground. Brian, I wish you continued good health.
Then we have the
Nothing in life is absolutely certain
I know, I’m being……….
AA
P.S. courtney is right about one thing though - we are covering old ground. Brian, I wish you continued good health.
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
Courtney,
and your point is what?
The rules, Sir. Why are they absurd?
Kind Regards.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
and your point is what?
The rules, Sir. Why are they absurd?
Kind Regards.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find these past statements interesting from someone who now claims to be an ex-military 'QHI'.......(assumption on my part).
AA
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.
Both Cook and Tapper were my students, I flew SH under John Day.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
Why not?
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anology
Originally Posted by courtney
In view of this I don't think that the rules should allow escape from judgement.
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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