Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You stumped me BEagle, and also Google!
Your search - porcovolant - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "porcovolant".
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
Your search - porcovolant - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "porcovolant".
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
'porcovolant' - from the Latin words for pig and flying. A porcovolant statement is one whose likelihood of happening is somewhat less than that of pigs flying! E.g. in an annual report under 'choice of postings', if someone wrote "I'd like to fly the A400M/FSTA/FTA/Nimrod MRA4 before I retire in 2007" that would be a porcovolant statement.
You won't find it in a dictionary - I made it up. But I would have thought the meaning to be self-evident.
Hence the idea of BuffHoon and the Ministry backing down and admitting that they are wrong is porcovolant. It will probably take a lot more pressure and parliamentary lobbying before justice is obtained. But justice must win in the end. Even if it means waiting for 'regime change' in government.
I hope that Brian has got a good author waiting in the wings to write the book covering the whole sad event.
You won't find it in a dictionary - I made it up. But I would have thought the meaning to be self-evident.
Hence the idea of BuffHoon and the Ministry backing down and admitting that they are wrong is porcovolant. It will probably take a lot more pressure and parliamentary lobbying before justice is obtained. But justice must win in the end. Even if it means waiting for 'regime change' in government.
I hope that Brian has got a good author waiting in the wings to write the book covering the whole sad event.
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Jul 2002 at 10:25.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A book would help to keep the campaign rolling, Beags, but a TV drama-documentary would really bring the whole affair to national prominence. I wouldn't normally advocate such a move, but with a good production company, the subject could be handled factually and sympathetically.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
I said it before. MOD will retain the status quo where possible. It is easier for them keep their heads in the sand. If they change tack, they will lose a very senior officer and have to replace him, as well as losing face (not that they haven't already to a great degree).
I don't think that all has been told about this sad episode and quite possibly it never will be, at least not in my lifetime. It seems set to remain a disgraceful blot on the integrity of the senior management levels of our Armed Forces and the system overseeing it. It has inflicted a terrible blow to the morale of RAF crews in particular.
This has all the hallmarks of a management accident if ever there was one. Two aircrew trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances have been made to take the blame when the true cause appears to lie quite a bit further up the chain of authorisation. It is now public knowledge that the aircraft should never have been flown on that day, the type in general was not airworthy according to the RAF's own test pilots who refused to fly their test airframe even for ten minutes to return it to Odiham. The fated airframe had a previously reported suspect navigation system and there was evidence in the wreckage that there may also have been a crew intercomm failure during its last flight.
There seems to have been a lack of duty of care to these passengers by those insisting that this flight went ahead despite the request of the Captain that it should not. There were at least three other possible alternatives to these senior people being flown in this type of aircraft on that day. They could have a. Stayed at home. b. Gone by military fixed wing. c. Gone civvy transport. Sadly all three were unacceptable at the time because they would have resulted in egg on someone's face as well as on the peak of his hat.
Any other management strategy would undoubtedly have saved the lives of all involved, especially those unwitting passengers. The accident began with the RAF trying to save face by failing to admit there was no serviceable helicopter to fly these passengers to their destination. That decision went tragically wrong as we all know. All the rest of this debacle has been caused by the same management system and individuals attempting to deflect attention from the other highly relevant factors behind this accident.
Of concern now is that the MOD seem to be attempting to place themselves above the law of the land. This is a very dangerous precedent which should not be allowed to continue.
I don't think that all has been told about this sad episode and quite possibly it never will be, at least not in my lifetime. It seems set to remain a disgraceful blot on the integrity of the senior management levels of our Armed Forces and the system overseeing it. It has inflicted a terrible blow to the morale of RAF crews in particular.
This has all the hallmarks of a management accident if ever there was one. Two aircrew trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances have been made to take the blame when the true cause appears to lie quite a bit further up the chain of authorisation. It is now public knowledge that the aircraft should never have been flown on that day, the type in general was not airworthy according to the RAF's own test pilots who refused to fly their test airframe even for ten minutes to return it to Odiham. The fated airframe had a previously reported suspect navigation system and there was evidence in the wreckage that there may also have been a crew intercomm failure during its last flight.
There seems to have been a lack of duty of care to these passengers by those insisting that this flight went ahead despite the request of the Captain that it should not. There were at least three other possible alternatives to these senior people being flown in this type of aircraft on that day. They could have a. Stayed at home. b. Gone by military fixed wing. c. Gone civvy transport. Sadly all three were unacceptable at the time because they would have resulted in egg on someone's face as well as on the peak of his hat.
Any other management strategy would undoubtedly have saved the lives of all involved, especially those unwitting passengers. The accident began with the RAF trying to save face by failing to admit there was no serviceable helicopter to fly these passengers to their destination. That decision went tragically wrong as we all know. All the rest of this debacle has been caused by the same management system and individuals attempting to deflect attention from the other highly relevant factors behind this accident.
Of concern now is that the MOD seem to be attempting to place themselves above the law of the land. This is a very dangerous precedent which should not be allowed to continue.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 21st Jul 2002 at 20:41.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque
Your final paragraph is the crux of the matter
"Of concern now is that the MOD seem to be attempting to place themselves above the law of the land. This is a very dangerous precedent which should not be allowed to continue."
I see that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time the two air marshals made their decision has now offered to take the blame for that decision. That's the sort of courage Minister Hoon should follow.
Does Hoon have the morale courage to do the right thing?
Your final paragraph is the crux of the matter
"Of concern now is that the MOD seem to be attempting to place themselves above the law of the land. This is a very dangerous precedent which should not be allowed to continue."
I see that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time the two air marshals made their decision has now offered to take the blame for that decision. That's the sort of courage Minister Hoon should follow.
Does Hoon have the morale courage to do the right thing?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently we have to wait until tomorrow to find out!
Meanwhile I will continue to seeth with anger at the prospect of a massive pre-mediated MOD cover up by a minister who is being led around the bullring by his nose.
Meanwhile I will continue to seeth with anger at the prospect of a massive pre-mediated MOD cover up by a minister who is being led around the bullring by his nose.
From the BBC web site. It appears that they are going to keep with their original decision.
Chinook pilots 'will not be cleared'
The pilots' families have vowed to clear their names
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to reject the findings of an inquiry that exonerated the two pilots blamed for a Chinook helicopter crash eight years ago.
It is anticipated that he will reject the conclusions of a select committee report into the Mull of Kintyre accident which decided pilot error could not be blamed.
The crash killed 29 people - many of them senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts.
The helicopter came down in Scotland
Pilots Jonathan Tapper, 30, from Burnham Thorpe in Norfolk, and Richard Cook, 28, from Church Crookham, Hants, were among those who died when the helicopter crashed in thick fog on its way from Northern Ireland to Inverness in June 1994.
The pilots' fathers have vowed to fight on to clear the pilots' names, regardless of the decision of defence officials.
There is wide speculation that Mr Hoon will refuse to overturn the findings of the Royal Air Force marshals who investigated the crash in 1996.
They concluded the two pilots must have been flying too fast and too low in foggy conditions.
Other investigations have since challenged that assumption.
Opinion divided
It is reported ministers will say there are no new grounds for reconvening the RAF Board of Inquiry or setting aside the verdicts of gross negligence.
Ahead of Mr Hoon's statement, the pilots' fathers, Mike Tapper and John Cook expressed their disappointment.
They said: "We cannot understand how the Ministry of Defence can reject the findings of such a distinguished group of peers from all political parties.
"As the Lords' report demonstrated, the MoD report is built not on fact but on assumptions.
"How the MoD can continue insisting that its story stands up is incomprehensible to us."
'Flawed investigation'
The RAF's own internal inquiry ruled it was impossible to establish the cause but there were no "human failings".
But that was overturned by RAF officers, Air Vice Marshal John Day and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten.
Then a fatal accident inquiry in Paisley, outside Glasgow, said the cause of the accident was a mystery and the RAF investigation flawed.
The House of Lords select committee has also cast doubt on the findings of the RAF air marshals.
There is also anger at the timing of Mr Hoon's announcement as the summer recess means there will be no time for a debate on the issue.
But Lord Chalfont has stressed that even if the MoD refuses to overturn the verdicts there will be a debate in the House of Lords after the recess.
Chinook pilots 'will not be cleared'
The pilots' families have vowed to clear their names
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to reject the findings of an inquiry that exonerated the two pilots blamed for a Chinook helicopter crash eight years ago.
It is anticipated that he will reject the conclusions of a select committee report into the Mull of Kintyre accident which decided pilot error could not be blamed.
The crash killed 29 people - many of them senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts.
The helicopter came down in Scotland
Pilots Jonathan Tapper, 30, from Burnham Thorpe in Norfolk, and Richard Cook, 28, from Church Crookham, Hants, were among those who died when the helicopter crashed in thick fog on its way from Northern Ireland to Inverness in June 1994.
The pilots' fathers have vowed to fight on to clear the pilots' names, regardless of the decision of defence officials.
There is wide speculation that Mr Hoon will refuse to overturn the findings of the Royal Air Force marshals who investigated the crash in 1996.
They concluded the two pilots must have been flying too fast and too low in foggy conditions.
Other investigations have since challenged that assumption.
Opinion divided
It is reported ministers will say there are no new grounds for reconvening the RAF Board of Inquiry or setting aside the verdicts of gross negligence.
Ahead of Mr Hoon's statement, the pilots' fathers, Mike Tapper and John Cook expressed their disappointment.
They said: "We cannot understand how the Ministry of Defence can reject the findings of such a distinguished group of peers from all political parties.
"As the Lords' report demonstrated, the MoD report is built not on fact but on assumptions.
"How the MoD can continue insisting that its story stands up is incomprehensible to us."
'Flawed investigation'
The RAF's own internal inquiry ruled it was impossible to establish the cause but there were no "human failings".
But that was overturned by RAF officers, Air Vice Marshal John Day and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten.
Then a fatal accident inquiry in Paisley, outside Glasgow, said the cause of the accident was a mystery and the RAF investigation flawed.
The House of Lords select committee has also cast doubt on the findings of the RAF air marshals.
There is also anger at the timing of Mr Hoon's announcement as the summer recess means there will be no time for a debate on the issue.
But Lord Chalfont has stressed that even if the MoD refuses to overturn the verdicts there will be a debate in the House of Lords after the recess.
How will the inadequately-testiculated Hoon explain why 2 people plus him are correct and all the other enquiries and investigations have been flawed?
Even Rifkind has now accepted that there was inadequate evidence to uphold the ministry's currently held position........... Time for Buff to do a Byers, perhaps?
Of course, all those people who e-mailed their MPs now have those addresses to hand - will they be back at their computers as soon as the announcement from the ministry is made?
Even Rifkind has now accepted that there was inadequate evidence to uphold the ministry's currently held position........... Time for Buff to do a Byers, perhaps?
Of course, all those people who e-mailed their MPs now have those addresses to hand - will they be back at their computers as soon as the announcement from the ministry is made?
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Jul 2002 at 05:26.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy T
Unfortunately the MoD and Senior RAF Officers have thought themselves to be above the law of our nation for quite some time. Using people junior to themselves as scapegoats in order to save their own @rses is nothing new. Trust me, I know.
Some things are worth fighting for. Truth and justice are ALWAYS worth fighting for. If today's announcement is negative Brian and the families can count on the continued support from many people here.
Unfortunately the MoD and Senior RAF Officers have thought themselves to be above the law of our nation for quite some time. Using people junior to themselves as scapegoats in order to save their own @rses is nothing new. Trust me, I know.
Some things are worth fighting for. Truth and justice are ALWAYS worth fighting for. If today's announcement is negative Brian and the families can count on the continued support from many people here.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though entirely predictable (see Ploppy's Prediction of 25 Apr on P.8) and wholly dishonourable, the fact that Hoon is giving the response just in time to run away on summer Recess shows that the MoD themselves believe they are being dishonourable and are 'in the wrong' on this one.
If they were confident of their position, the would surely have given the response in time to face the music in both Houses, rather than childishly slip it in before the hols and hope the housemaster forgets before next term. Somehow, I don't think the 'housemaster's' alzheimers is as advanced as they hope.
If they were confident of their position, the would surely have given the response in time to face the music in both Houses, rather than childishly slip it in before the hols and hope the housemaster forgets before next term. Somehow, I don't think the 'housemaster's' alzheimers is as advanced as they hope.
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No flight data recorder = No evidence of negligence
....and anyway, the HOL cleared them, so that's good enough for me.
Politicians no longer have any credibility IMHO. "Posturing Apes", as Freddie Forsyth once said.
Hope the campaign continues, for the Families sake, but as far as I'm concerned, they are cleared......
....and anyway, the HOL cleared them, so that's good enough for me.
Politicians no longer have any credibility IMHO. "Posturing Apes", as Freddie Forsyth once said.
Hope the campaign continues, for the Families sake, but as far as I'm concerned, they are cleared......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as follows.......
From the BBC(22/7):
"The UK Government has not accepted the findings of a Lords report that the RAF was wrong to blame two Chinook pilots for a crash in which 29 people died. The Ministry of Defence, on Monday, said it "notes the committee's report, but does not accept its conclusion".
The pilots of the massive helicopter were branded as negligent by an official board of inquiry following the crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. That finding has been the subject of much controversy and evidence has emerged that the crash, which killed everyone on board, may have been caused by technical problems.
But Junior Defence Minister Lord Bach told the Lords that "the only realistic explanation" for the disaster was the finding of the pilots negligence by the reviewing officers of the RAF board of inquiry. He said: "We can deduce that at some point the aircraft entered cloud - which the crew had been warned to expect - well below safety altitude."
The RAF aircraft, with two pilots and two crew, was carrying 25 passengers who were mostly senior intelligence personnel, on their way to a conference to discuss Northern Ireland. They were bound for Fort George, near Inverness, having taken off from Northern Ireland.
In 1995 an RAF Board of Inquiry found that the two pilots were guilty of negligence even though guidelines said that verdict should only be returned when there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Campaigners on behalf of the dead pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook, claimed the government would ignore the Lords Select Committee report, which said there was no justification for such a finding.
The official response said: "The Ministry of Defence remains of the view that the reviewing officers were fully justified in their conclusion and that there was evidence supporting their conclusion to the requisite standard of proof."
It went on: "No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty.
"Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident.
"In a case where there were deceased aircrew, the relevant departmental guidance required the reviewing officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that their negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
"In this tragic case, all the known facts point to that one inescapable conclusion."
"The UK Government has not accepted the findings of a Lords report that the RAF was wrong to blame two Chinook pilots for a crash in which 29 people died. The Ministry of Defence, on Monday, said it "notes the committee's report, but does not accept its conclusion".
The pilots of the massive helicopter were branded as negligent by an official board of inquiry following the crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. That finding has been the subject of much controversy and evidence has emerged that the crash, which killed everyone on board, may have been caused by technical problems.
But Junior Defence Minister Lord Bach told the Lords that "the only realistic explanation" for the disaster was the finding of the pilots negligence by the reviewing officers of the RAF board of inquiry. He said: "We can deduce that at some point the aircraft entered cloud - which the crew had been warned to expect - well below safety altitude."
The RAF aircraft, with two pilots and two crew, was carrying 25 passengers who were mostly senior intelligence personnel, on their way to a conference to discuss Northern Ireland. They were bound for Fort George, near Inverness, having taken off from Northern Ireland.
In 1995 an RAF Board of Inquiry found that the two pilots were guilty of negligence even though guidelines said that verdict should only be returned when there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Campaigners on behalf of the dead pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook, claimed the government would ignore the Lords Select Committee report, which said there was no justification for such a finding.
The official response said: "The Ministry of Defence remains of the view that the reviewing officers were fully justified in their conclusion and that there was evidence supporting their conclusion to the requisite standard of proof."
It went on: "No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty.
"Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident.
"In a case where there were deceased aircrew, the relevant departmental guidance required the reviewing officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that their negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
"In this tragic case, all the known facts point to that one inescapable conclusion."
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident.
How bloody arrogant can they be???
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having listened to the statement and had a quick scan at the report, it seems the MoD is trotting out the same old guff.
I look forward to its dissection by knowledgeable Ppruners who I imagine will be choking when they read parts of it.
I look forward to its dissection by knowledgeable Ppruners who I imagine will be choking when they read parts of it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The full text of the MoD 'Response' is at http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the matter of whether Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent were to go to a court of law then the comments of Lord Bach would be very different from those made in the Lords this afternoon.
The cavalier attitude of this second rate minister should be compared with the report of the Lords Select Committee and especially its conclusion where the ex Law Lord Jauncey stated in no uncertain terms that the case that the deceased pilots were negligent was no proved.
The views of Bach and Buff Hoon derive from the fact that they fully appreciate that their quaint and self servicing justification is not likely to be tested in a court of law. This knowledge allows them to continue the reprehensible mental torture on the families of the deceased pilots and to come up with comments such as that quoted by PPRune Pop that simply shows the muddled thinking of the ministers concerned.
For the families it is right that the campaign continues to persuade Her Majesty’s Government to do the right thing – something even the original inquiry members wanted to do and to accept that there is no legal justification for the findings of the two air marshals that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent.
The cavalier attitude of this second rate minister should be compared with the report of the Lords Select Committee and especially its conclusion where the ex Law Lord Jauncey stated in no uncertain terms that the case that the deceased pilots were negligent was no proved.
The views of Bach and Buff Hoon derive from the fact that they fully appreciate that their quaint and self servicing justification is not likely to be tested in a court of law. This knowledge allows them to continue the reprehensible mental torture on the families of the deceased pilots and to come up with comments such as that quoted by PPRune Pop that simply shows the muddled thinking of the ministers concerned.
For the families it is right that the campaign continues to persuade Her Majesty’s Government to do the right thing – something even the original inquiry members wanted to do and to accept that there is no legal justification for the findings of the two air marshals that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent.
Last edited by slj; 23rd Jul 2002 at 06:13.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the conclusions of the MOD response and the quaint comment ""Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident"
Interesting example given that a motorist driving too fast can be guilty even though there is evidence of break failure.
Not the best or most convincing argument as in the case they mention there is evidence that the motorist was driving too fast.
In the case of Flt Lts Tapper and Cook there is no proof they were negligent.
Perhaps some day the MOD might twig the simple fact. There is not proof the the two pilots were negligent no matter how much spin they put on it.
Interesting example given that a motorist driving too fast can be guilty even though there is evidence of break failure.
Not the best or most convincing argument as in the case they mention there is evidence that the motorist was driving too fast.
In the case of Flt Lts Tapper and Cook there is no proof they were negligent.
Perhaps some day the MOD might twig the simple fact. There is not proof the the two pilots were negligent no matter how much spin they put on it.
Last edited by slj; 22nd Jul 2002 at 21:21.