Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Indeed I am disappointed with your answers bearing in mind your experience:
What does << an RAF trained crew would be aware of the limitations of any fixed and published navaid, including DME. >> contribute to a general readers understanding that DME systems are a favourite of helo pilots – talk to civil operators (eg oil rigs, etc), read stuff, ask Navy – just the usual negative spin and obfuscation again from you. You are just countering the valid point that a DME reading is trusted as being very much more accurate and reliable than anything else, including the MK1 eyeball – by a big margin.
My point is, a false DME reading would really over-ride all else, both equipment and vision, when it came to closing in to land.
I think this point stands on its own without any ties to theories and is just plain useful to know.
The relevance here is that it would have been the only navaid type that they would have trusted to approach the coast rapidly in those conditions (where it was hard to judge range because of the ground mist) – even if waypoint A had not been deselected, Flt Lt Tapper would not have trusted the STANS to better than ½ mile after a sea crossing.
.
<< … re the crew being misled by a ground talkdown … The only agency a helicopter pilot would trust is an ATCO at an airfield, using a recognised approach.>>
So every infantry stick requiring extraction, CASEVAC, or re-supply requires an ATCO to accompany them? Suggest you get up to date with how these PLS sets are used in the field, by who, etc. – wouldn’t be much of a practical training demo with ATC staff assisting would it?
.
<< Regarding the possibility of a crew being misled by some sort of mobile DME … is just plain silly.>>
It’s the only way I can think of that accounts for them heading that way at that speed in those conditions (in the clear but towards mist covered slopes):
Had they decided to overfly the Mull, they knew near enough by the STANS how close in they were and the suggestion that the crash happened because they had “selected an inappropriate rate of climb” was silly;
Had they a problem with the a/c, they had ¾ of the compass to turn safely away from the high ground, or do something, anything, other than go straight on and to suggest that such a multiple jam had occurred, yet the Chinook continued on track flying for 20 seconds, then cleared itself is, well, ‘effin silly.
And silly or not, by exploring this line I have tried to do a reasonable analysis of the data that is available (to date, as far as I know, only Mr Mitchel of the Boeing Company has done likewise), asking questions, etc and in doing so have identified sufficient to suggest that they were engaging in something particular near the Mull, like an additional task, that has not been declared that may be relevant to the Campaign’s objective. You lot could have done a better more complete job a long time ago if you could think outside the box – you don’t have to accept the whole conspiracy theory to establish that there was something extra going on – and something extra not declared must make the original verdict unsound.
Of course, the strategy has been to not dig around – get their names cleared without exposing the MOD (and your Arm in particular) to serious embarrassment? The greatest disservice you could do to the crew, the passengers, and the British people is obstruct getting to the bottom of this because however unlikely, unpalatable, or “silly” views may be the implications of any kind of foul play having happened here are just too damn serious to ignore – if a parameter is being interpreted wrongly in your view then, please, explain what else it does mean – and how about reinforcing some true points instead of using false arguments to counter them – you know, the “nothing can be known” treatment.
If enough of the counter arguments (especially the early ones) had not been false, if enough information had been volunteered to understand, if so many things had not been misrepresented or omitted (just like at the inquiries), if just a few true points had been acknowledged and even reinforced, I could have been convinced that this line was wrong a long time ago – now you stalwarts of this thread (you know who you are) are just sounding boards.
.
My whole theory fits all that is known to date – if it is “silly”, I’d hate to think of the expletive that describes your efforts.
Indeed I am disappointed with your answers bearing in mind your experience:
What does << an RAF trained crew would be aware of the limitations of any fixed and published navaid, including DME. >> contribute to a general readers understanding that DME systems are a favourite of helo pilots – talk to civil operators (eg oil rigs, etc), read stuff, ask Navy – just the usual negative spin and obfuscation again from you. You are just countering the valid point that a DME reading is trusted as being very much more accurate and reliable than anything else, including the MK1 eyeball – by a big margin.
My point is, a false DME reading would really over-ride all else, both equipment and vision, when it came to closing in to land.
I think this point stands on its own without any ties to theories and is just plain useful to know.
The relevance here is that it would have been the only navaid type that they would have trusted to approach the coast rapidly in those conditions (where it was hard to judge range because of the ground mist) – even if waypoint A had not been deselected, Flt Lt Tapper would not have trusted the STANS to better than ½ mile after a sea crossing.
.
<< … re the crew being misled by a ground talkdown … The only agency a helicopter pilot would trust is an ATCO at an airfield, using a recognised approach.>>
So every infantry stick requiring extraction, CASEVAC, or re-supply requires an ATCO to accompany them? Suggest you get up to date with how these PLS sets are used in the field, by who, etc. – wouldn’t be much of a practical training demo with ATC staff assisting would it?
.
<< Regarding the possibility of a crew being misled by some sort of mobile DME … is just plain silly.>>
It’s the only way I can think of that accounts for them heading that way at that speed in those conditions (in the clear but towards mist covered slopes):
Had they decided to overfly the Mull, they knew near enough by the STANS how close in they were and the suggestion that the crash happened because they had “selected an inappropriate rate of climb” was silly;
Had they a problem with the a/c, they had ¾ of the compass to turn safely away from the high ground, or do something, anything, other than go straight on and to suggest that such a multiple jam had occurred, yet the Chinook continued on track flying for 20 seconds, then cleared itself is, well, ‘effin silly.
And silly or not, by exploring this line I have tried to do a reasonable analysis of the data that is available (to date, as far as I know, only Mr Mitchel of the Boeing Company has done likewise), asking questions, etc and in doing so have identified sufficient to suggest that they were engaging in something particular near the Mull, like an additional task, that has not been declared that may be relevant to the Campaign’s objective. You lot could have done a better more complete job a long time ago if you could think outside the box – you don’t have to accept the whole conspiracy theory to establish that there was something extra going on – and something extra not declared must make the original verdict unsound.
Of course, the strategy has been to not dig around – get their names cleared without exposing the MOD (and your Arm in particular) to serious embarrassment? The greatest disservice you could do to the crew, the passengers, and the British people is obstruct getting to the bottom of this because however unlikely, unpalatable, or “silly” views may be the implications of any kind of foul play having happened here are just too damn serious to ignore – if a parameter is being interpreted wrongly in your view then, please, explain what else it does mean – and how about reinforcing some true points instead of using false arguments to counter them – you know, the “nothing can be known” treatment.
If enough of the counter arguments (especially the early ones) had not been false, if enough information had been volunteered to understand, if so many things had not been misrepresented or omitted (just like at the inquiries), if just a few true points had been acknowledged and even reinforced, I could have been convinced that this line was wrong a long time ago – now you stalwarts of this thread (you know who you are) are just sounding boards.
.
My whole theory fits all that is known to date – if it is “silly”, I’d hate to think of the expletive that describes your efforts.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For God's sake Walt give it a rest! You have always been boring but now you have topped it.
Your theories have been expounded so many times that you are just a wind up now.
Please get it through your head that NOTHING you can say now means anything and I am sure everyone would like to leave the matter alone and let it take its course over the coming weeks.
I would suggest to anyone thinking of answering Walt to refrain from doing so. Your call of course, since you can choose as you wish.
Go fishing Walt, or whatever you do to relax. You need it mate.
Your theories have been expounded so many times that you are just a wind up now.
Please get it through your head that NOTHING you can say now means anything and I am sure everyone would like to leave the matter alone and let it take its course over the coming weeks.
I would suggest to anyone thinking of answering Walt to refrain from doing so. Your call of course, since you can choose as you wish.
Go fishing Walt, or whatever you do to relax. You need it mate.
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
Of course, the strategy has been to not dig around – get their names cleared without exposing the MOD (and your Arm in particular) to serious embarrassment? The greatest disservice you could do to the crew, the passengers, and the British people is obstruct getting to the bottom of this because however unlikely, unpalatable, or “silly” views may be the implications of any kind of foul play having happened here are just too damn serious to ignore – if a parameter is being interpreted wrongly in your view then, please, explain what else it does mean – and how about reinforcing some true points instead of using false arguments to counter them – you know, the “nothing can be known” treatment.
I'm sorry but most of your last post is totally wrong. You patently have little idea of how SH, or helicopters in general, actually operate and seem totally unwilling to listen to "true points" as you put it.
NO pilot relies on a simple DME to let down. It is NOT as accurate as you seem to think and no pilot would use it like you suppose. You do have a knack of picking up little snippets from all sorts of sources, many of them incorrect or half true, and have knitted them into a yarn to fit in with this persistent but false idea you got into your head years ago. You have allowed it to grow and grow until you think you are the only one here who isn't hiding the "truth".
You have sent me a number of questions by PM over the years and I have answered them totally truthfully. If I've not known the answer, I have told you. If the answer was no, I've told you. There is certainly no cover up or untruth told on my part.
I wrote about this accident, accusing the RAF and MOD of a whitewash, well before this campaign even began, even before Brian Dixon was involved because having left that theatre not long before I knew more than some and smelled a rat, especially in view of the character of both pilots, whom I knew and what had been going on with the HC2.
Much later when you appeared, I told you that as far as I knew the equipment you insist might have been fitted was not fitted to RAF helicopters at that time. Others have repeated this but it only leads you to think we are hiding the truth because you WANT it to be the truth. This is why other contributors have called your idea "the little green man theory" or similar.
Why can you not see that this theory you invented / dreamed up is only in your head? I've suggested to you a number of times that you should start your own parallel thread on the subject of your theory, Again I ask - why have you never done so?
Last edited by ShyTorque; 20th Jan 2008 at 00:37.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in Computing 17 Jan 2008
Eight Chinook which cost 259 million poudns have been stored for eight years because of avionics software issues, contract with Boeing didn't specify that software documents and code should be analysed in accordance with UK Defence Standards. Another 90 million pounds should see them ready by 2009
http://tinyurl.com/23jf48
http://tinyurl.com/23jf48
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
Ricardian,
This thread might be of interest to you.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hlight=Chinook
This thread might be of interest to you.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hlight=Chinook
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BA 058 Boeing 777 crash caused me to dig into likely or possible reasons.
...I came across references to notices about FADEC problems with airliners taxying at low power settings in freezing fog having engine failures due to small amounts of icing affecting various pneumatic sensors.
... In the last 6 or 7 years several notices have been issued to modify bleed sizes and smooth out pipe bends and joints with some reference to the possibility of double failure due to similar conditions affecting 2 entirely separated systems
... This may or may not be relevant for the B777 twin,but does also call to mind the doubts about the Boeing Fadecs , of the RAF Chinook which failed to pull up in the fog at Kintyre
...Were the Fadecs of a similar design?
... Are these Icing notices worthy of bringing to attention and using in connection with the RAF enquiry and continuing appeal?
...I came across references to notices about FADEC problems with airliners taxying at low power settings in freezing fog having engine failures due to small amounts of icing affecting various pneumatic sensors.
... In the last 6 or 7 years several notices have been issued to modify bleed sizes and smooth out pipe bends and joints with some reference to the possibility of double failure due to similar conditions affecting 2 entirely separated systems
... This may or may not be relevant for the B777 twin,but does also call to mind the doubts about the Boeing Fadecs , of the RAF Chinook which failed to pull up in the fog at Kintyre
...Were the Fadecs of a similar design?
... Are these Icing notices worthy of bringing to attention and using in connection with the RAF enquiry and continuing appeal?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a nice video clip for anyone who, like me, isn't supposed to be familar with how these things fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znrf6v7se-s
While generally interesting, the vid shows rather well the Chinooks capabilities flying sideways - as I said in post # 3142, the extreme left pedal position does not necessarily suggest a control problem but rather an evasive manouevre, turning side on to slow down in an emergency.
I have been told that special forces pilots practice this manouevre.
Just one point but it is important in that the pedal position's potential as a clue was discounted at one of the inquiries as an extreme yaw manouevre was said to have been inappropriate for a Chinook - said recently by a another contributor to be a symptom of lack of control.
No wonder "nothing can be known" when experienced pilots on this thread do not correct such errors - why does it have to be done by people who do not have the direct experience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znrf6v7se-s
While generally interesting, the vid shows rather well the Chinooks capabilities flying sideways - as I said in post # 3142, the extreme left pedal position does not necessarily suggest a control problem but rather an evasive manouevre, turning side on to slow down in an emergency.
I have been told that special forces pilots practice this manouevre.
Just one point but it is important in that the pedal position's potential as a clue was discounted at one of the inquiries as an extreme yaw manouevre was said to have been inappropriate for a Chinook - said recently by a another contributor to be a symptom of lack of control.
No wonder "nothing can be known" when experienced pilots on this thread do not correct such errors - why does it have to be done by people who do not have the direct experience?
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
Here's a nice video clip for anyone who, like me, isn't supposed to be familar with how these things fly.
Two weeks since the SoS for Defence received his document. I wonder how he's getting on?
Regards as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - Brian Dixon
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77,
Perhaps sir if you were to read this thread from start to finish you might want to rephrase your question
"I have never understood how a fit helicopter crew, under full control of their aircraft, which was apparently viewed just under the stratus from the sea shortly before impact, could fly straight into the shrouded Mull hilltop from the south"
as the matter of "full control" has been covered quite succinctly by plenty of highly qualified and professional folk who DO "have practical experience of flying a powered aircraft."
I would be interested to hear your thoughts once you have read every post on this subject.
Perhaps sir if you were to read this thread from start to finish you might want to rephrase your question
"I have never understood how a fit helicopter crew, under full control of their aircraft, which was apparently viewed just under the stratus from the sea shortly before impact, could fly straight into the shrouded Mull hilltop from the south"
as the matter of "full control" has been covered quite succinctly by plenty of highly qualified and professional folk who DO "have practical experience of flying a powered aircraft."
I would be interested to hear your thoughts once you have read every post on this subject.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
In your opening post on this very long and detailed thread you offered the following statement
"I have never understood how a fit helicopter crew, under full control of their aircraft, which was apparently viewed just under the stratus from the sea shortly before impact, could fly straight into the shrouded Mull hilltop from the south"
I interpreted this as you posing a question in order to clear up you're lack of understanding and my advice that you take some time and read the whole thread from start to finish was to hopefully shed some light on what you have never understood.
In your opening post on this very long and detailed thread you offered the following statement
"I have never understood how a fit helicopter crew, under full control of their aircraft, which was apparently viewed just under the stratus from the sea shortly before impact, could fly straight into the shrouded Mull hilltop from the south"
I interpreted this as you posing a question in order to clear up you're lack of understanding and my advice that you take some time and read the whole thread from start to finish was to hopefully shed some light on what you have never understood.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just which understanding is it that reading the whole of this thread would help? Do you think that the volume of discussion on control jams makes this the likely cause of the crash?
ref my previous posts 2863 & 2927, the control jam theory is ridiculous.
Just as the "official" line of pilot error in IMC is unjustified in the light of the actual conditions - that this new poster's description seems to fit.
I rather think that this poster is asking a rhetorical question, and a reasonable one, how this could have happened in those circumstances.
The idea of overshooting the landing area at waypoint A just too much for you all?
ref my previous posts 2863 & 2927, the control jam theory is ridiculous.
Just as the "official" line of pilot error in IMC is unjustified in the light of the actual conditions - that this new poster's description seems to fit.
I rather think that this poster is asking a rhetorical question, and a reasonable one, how this could have happened in those circumstances.
The idea of overshooting the landing area at waypoint A just too much for you all?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
I am sorry if you view the well meant advice I have offered in this manner as all I was trying to point out was that there is a wealth of information contained within this thread and some extremely articulate arguments both for and against the findings in this case.
On one hand we have the likes of John Purdy and Cazatou who present compelling and well constructed reasons in support of the AM's decision whilst they are countered equally as eloquently from the likes of Shy Torque, JT, John Blakely et al.
If you read the thread from start to finish you will have a much more informed base to make you're own mind up as to what probably happened, you may even start to believe Walters martian theory but what ever please read it all and hopefully that will sort out any confusion you may have................or you could just take the advice given by pm and simply ignore me
Edited to avoid being contentious.
I am sorry if you view the well meant advice I have offered in this manner as all I was trying to point out was that there is a wealth of information contained within this thread and some extremely articulate arguments both for and against the findings in this case.
On one hand we have the likes of John Purdy and Cazatou who present compelling and well constructed reasons in support of the AM's decision whilst they are countered equally as eloquently from the likes of Shy Torque, JT, John Blakely et al.
If you read the thread from start to finish you will have a much more informed base to make you're own mind up as to what probably happened, you may even start to believe Walters martian theory but what ever please read it all and hopefully that will sort out any confusion you may have................or you could just take the advice given by pm and simply ignore me
Edited to avoid being contentious.
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 7th Feb 2008 at 21:45.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldomfitforpurpose
I hesitate to attempt to speak for John Purdey but, on this matter, I am certain that he would join me in saying "Thankyou".
I would, however, take issue over your description of the finding by the AOC, in which the AOCinC concurred, as a "Legal Decision". This description would suggest that some sort of trial had taken place which was not the case (and never could be with deceased Aircrew).
A Board of Inquiry is an investigative progress to establish the cause of an a particular occurence. Although evidence is taken on oath it is not taken under caution and cannot, therefore, be used in evidence in a court of law. If a BOI uncovers evidence that indicates that Formal Legal Action is justified then the BOI will be suspended; the Formal Legal Action will be initiated and will continue separately to its conclusion. The BOI will then reconvene to continue its deliberations. The finding of the BOI, including the remarks of the AOC and AOC in C, will be an administrative finding.
I hesitate to attempt to speak for John Purdey but, on this matter, I am certain that he would join me in saying "Thankyou".
I would, however, take issue over your description of the finding by the AOC, in which the AOCinC concurred, as a "Legal Decision". This description would suggest that some sort of trial had taken place which was not the case (and never could be with deceased Aircrew).
A Board of Inquiry is an investigative progress to establish the cause of an a particular occurence. Although evidence is taken on oath it is not taken under caution and cannot, therefore, be used in evidence in a court of law. If a BOI uncovers evidence that indicates that Formal Legal Action is justified then the BOI will be suspended; the Formal Legal Action will be initiated and will continue separately to its conclusion. The BOI will then reconvene to continue its deliberations. The finding of the BOI, including the remarks of the AOC and AOC in C, will be an administrative finding.
Last edited by cazatou; 7th Feb 2008 at 20:01.
The finding of the BOI, including the remarks of the AOC and AOC in C, will be an administrative finding.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I make tea for a living so please don't read anything into my comments as I was not trying to imply anything...............I have gone back and edited my post accordingly.
I make tea for a living so please don't read anything into my comments as I was not trying to imply anything...............I have gone back and edited my post accordingly.
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
PKPF68-77,
welcome to the thread.
The full control of the aircraft is a statement that may be true, but the Air Accident Investigation Branch investigator could not positively verify the serviceability of the Chinook prior to the accident. Please don't think I'm saying that the aircraft wasn't serviceable. I don't know. Please also bear in mind that the burden of proof required to find deceased pilots guilty of negligence is "Absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So, any doubt - no matter how small, undermines the Mod's argument.
With your expertise in weather, I'm sure you will understand why I have expressed concerns over the reliance of the MoD on the evidence of those who were unfortunate to have been on the Mull at the time of the accident. The MoD states that as the witnesses were in cloud, so must the Mull have been completely covered in cloud and that it extended out from the Mull for some distance.
Am I wrong in thinking that when stood in cloud, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to state how far out the cloud extends - both away from you and how far down a hillside it goes. Please don't think I'm being flippant. I'm not, and would value an opinion from someone with more expertise in this field than I have. The MoD rely heavily on these witnesses and disregard the evidence from someone who is looking at the Mull from the same direction as the Chinook.
It would be worth your while having a look over the many posts in this thread as you would then see where the Campaign is coming from. As has been mentioned already, look also at the reasoned arguments by those who have a different view to me (and many others) and then make up your mind as to what you believe. If it ends up a differing view to me, that's absolutely fine, but I would be grateful for your opinion on the weather question.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread.
The full control of the aircraft is a statement that may be true, but the Air Accident Investigation Branch investigator could not positively verify the serviceability of the Chinook prior to the accident. Please don't think I'm saying that the aircraft wasn't serviceable. I don't know. Please also bear in mind that the burden of proof required to find deceased pilots guilty of negligence is "Absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So, any doubt - no matter how small, undermines the Mod's argument.
With your expertise in weather, I'm sure you will understand why I have expressed concerns over the reliance of the MoD on the evidence of those who were unfortunate to have been on the Mull at the time of the accident. The MoD states that as the witnesses were in cloud, so must the Mull have been completely covered in cloud and that it extended out from the Mull for some distance.
Am I wrong in thinking that when stood in cloud, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to state how far out the cloud extends - both away from you and how far down a hillside it goes. Please don't think I'm being flippant. I'm not, and would value an opinion from someone with more expertise in this field than I have. The MoD rely heavily on these witnesses and disregard the evidence from someone who is looking at the Mull from the same direction as the Chinook.
It would be worth your while having a look over the many posts in this thread as you would then see where the Campaign is coming from. As has been mentioned already, look also at the reasoned arguments by those who have a different view to me (and many others) and then make up your mind as to what you believe. If it ends up a differing view to me, that's absolutely fine, but I would be grateful for your opinion on the weather question.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question of the weather at the time, Mk2 FADEC issues etc should be part of a wider debate/discussion outside one fundamental point – the ‘legality’ of the findings by Day/Wratten within the constraints and scope of a BOI of the day.
Day found Tapper/Cook to be grossly negligent at a point in time along the aircraft’s track prior to its impact. Was this a subjective assessment, or did he have the empirical evidence to support his findings? My interest is in the ‘legal advice’ Day sought prior to him passing the report to Wratten (who, in the main, concurred with Day’s findings).
What was that advice? It is that received advice that needs to be closely scrutinised by legal experts because it, clearly, had a major influence in drafting the final report to find Tapper/Cook grossly negligent (beyond 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever').
Is the legal advice Day received a matter of record? If it is, could someone please steer me to it?
AA
Day found Tapper/Cook to be grossly negligent at a point in time along the aircraft’s track prior to its impact. Was this a subjective assessment, or did he have the empirical evidence to support his findings? My interest is in the ‘legal advice’ Day sought prior to him passing the report to Wratten (who, in the main, concurred with Day’s findings).
What was that advice? It is that received advice that needs to be closely scrutinised by legal experts because it, clearly, had a major influence in drafting the final report to find Tapper/Cook grossly negligent (beyond 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever').
Is the legal advice Day received a matter of record? If it is, could someone please steer me to it?
AA
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
I would be grateful for your opinion on my posts 2757, 2758, 2759, & 2760 which have links to photos of local weather with brief explanation - the last one is a video which requires Adobe Flash Player to view.
I would be grateful for your opinion on my posts 2757, 2758, 2759, & 2760 which have links to photos of local weather with brief explanation - the last one is a video which requires Adobe Flash Player to view.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Interesting and relevant question.
A further question is what is the source of the legal advice - 'in house' government employed lawyers, a firm of solicitors or Counsel?
Doubtless the MOD will claim legal professional privilege. Not sure about the current state of the Law in the UK. But in Oz, there's recent case law that casts doubt on any legal professional privilege claim made by government employed lawyers, if they don't hold a practicing certificate.
A further question is what is the source of the legal advice - 'in house' government employed lawyers, a firm of solicitors or Counsel?
Doubtless the MOD will claim legal professional privilege. Not sure about the current state of the Law in the UK. But in Oz, there's recent case law that casts doubt on any legal professional privilege claim made by government employed lawyers, if they don't hold a practicing certificate.