Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WK
Regarding your post #3297 14 Mar 08.
You stated:-
"I managed to get an interview at the MOD ----- all I got was a PR man (Air Cdre McRobbie)."
Would that have been Air Cdre Gordon McRobbie - a former Commandant of the Central Flying School ?
Regarding your post #3297 14 Mar 08.
You stated:-
"I managed to get an interview at the MOD ----- all I got was a PR man (Air Cdre McRobbie)."
Would that have been Air Cdre Gordon McRobbie - a former Commandant of the Central Flying School ?
Just a numbered other
With it looking more and more likely that Browne is about to be fired, I guess this case is small in his list of problems.
Is anything known about the views of likely successors?
Is anything known about the views of likely successors?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter,
I was merely commenting on the reported dissent among junior members of the Government with regard to the abolition of the 10% tax rate and the reaction of the Prime Minster.
Press speculation holds that the PM is less than happy with reports that some in junior appointments are not maintaining the "Party Line" and that he therefore intends to enforce compliance with Party Policy in all matters.
PS The answer to my question regarding the Air Commodore is ?
I was merely commenting on the reported dissent among junior members of the Government with regard to the abolition of the 10% tax rate and the reaction of the Prime Minster.
Press speculation holds that the PM is less than happy with reports that some in junior appointments are not maintaining the "Party Line" and that he therefore intends to enforce compliance with Party Policy in all matters.
PS The answer to my question regarding the Air Commodore is ?
Last edited by cazatou; 20th Apr 2008 at 09:36.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jindabyne
WE both know that. I wonder how he could be mistaken for a PR man - unless he failed to register the incredulity he must have felt upon receipt of Walter's "information".
Nice pictures by the way!!
WE both know that. I wonder how he could be mistaken for a PR man - unless he failed to register the incredulity he must have felt upon receipt of Walter's "information".
Nice pictures by the way!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the complex issues involved in this case it would seem that some politician who will have never been near a helicopter or military establishment is to decide the issue. May as well toss a coin gents. Or of course look at which decision may make most votes.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
courtney
This case has never hinged on the presence of any "complex issues"! It is the total absence of any reliable evidence prior to impact, that defines it!
Every independent inquiry, on every standard of proof below 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever', has found that the evidence for finding either of the pilots guilty of anything, simply is not present!
Let right be done.
This case has never hinged on the presence of any "complex issues"! It is the total absence of any reliable evidence prior to impact, that defines it!
Every independent inquiry, on every standard of proof below 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever', has found that the evidence for finding either of the pilots guilty of anything, simply is not present!
Let right be done.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 22nd Apr 2008 at 07:01.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the complex issues involved in this case it would seem that some politician who will have never been near a helicopter or military establishment is to decide the issue
I noticed recently that a civilian lawyer with no experience of the UK military has been appointed to take charge of courts martial against British soldiers. A committee of MPs urged the Ministry of Defence to give the job of overseeing the military justice system to a candidate with specialist knowledge of the forces and an understanding of the pressures of combat. Instead, the £130,000-a-year role of Director of Service Prosecutions has gone to a criminal law barrister with no experience of the forces and no specialisation in military justice.
And who drafts such recommendations to Ministers? Why, Sir Humphrey's camp followers, of course. And who will decide the extant Chinook issue? Surely not those who have a vested interest in allowing the status quo to prevail?
Yes Minister.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Glad to see you are well and still posting but any chance of an answer to the question I posed on the 17th of Feb
Glad to see you are well and still posting but any chance of an answer to the question I posed on the 17th of Feb
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 24th Apr 2008 at 08:02.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
I agree with Tandemrotor. The basics of this case are very simple. In all complex technical, financial, medical etc cases the judge and jury have to be guided by expert witnesses. In this case the judge and the jury is the SOFs. I watched both Sir John Day and Sqn Ldr Bob Burke give their evidence to the Lords committee. They were both expert and convicing but their opinions were very different. With such differences the "no doubt whatsoever" requirement fails.
I agree with Tandemrotor. The basics of this case are very simple. In all complex technical, financial, medical etc cases the judge and jury have to be guided by expert witnesses. In this case the judge and the jury is the SOFs. I watched both Sir John Day and Sqn Ldr Bob Burke give their evidence to the Lords committee. They were both expert and convicing but their opinions were very different. With such differences the "no doubt whatsoever" requirement fails.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Seldom. Your question was...." explain how the Chinook's crew INADVERTENTLY entered IMC as you have prior experience of this phenomena". I have not bothered to reply because it is a non-question. I have never said that their entry was inadvertent. Read the many earlier posts on this aspect of the tragedy. Please feel free to niggle about something else now! Regards. JP
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Sorry to labour the point but you seem to be dodging the fairly simple questions I have posed and as I remarked to Caz in another thread, in the context of this thread this is highly unusual.
I have cut and pasted my post from Feb 17th and I have highlighted the points I was hoping you would clear up for us. I have removed the word "inadvertent" to simplify things but a response would be appreciated.
"JP,
AA has a valid point which I believe needs a honest reply. You (JP) have clearly stated that
"I recall more than once finding myself inadvertently entering IMC"
Do you consider your actions in these cases to be grossly negligent or is it the fact that it was inadvertent that excuses you?
The hows and whys of the Chinook's entry into IMC are not clear as there is enough conflicting evidence as to what was PROBABLY seen weather wise from the Chinook's flight deck windows to give sufficient doubt.
Should you choose to reply then please strip out all considerations about what should or should not have happened at the way point change and explain how the Chinook's crew entered IMC as you have prior experience of this phenomena."
Cheers
SFFP
Sorry to labour the point but you seem to be dodging the fairly simple questions I have posed and as I remarked to Caz in another thread, in the context of this thread this is highly unusual.
I have cut and pasted my post from Feb 17th and I have highlighted the points I was hoping you would clear up for us. I have removed the word "inadvertent" to simplify things but a response would be appreciated.
"JP,
AA has a valid point which I believe needs a honest reply. You (JP) have clearly stated that
"I recall more than once finding myself inadvertently entering IMC"
Do you consider your actions in these cases to be grossly negligent or is it the fact that it was inadvertent that excuses you?
The hows and whys of the Chinook's entry into IMC are not clear as there is enough conflicting evidence as to what was PROBABLY seen weather wise from the Chinook's flight deck windows to give sufficient doubt.
Should you choose to reply then please strip out all considerations about what should or should not have happened at the way point change and explain how the Chinook's crew entered IMC as you have prior experience of this phenomena."
Cheers
SFFP
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Seldom. Not sure why we feel the need for red-ink entries, but let me in turn ask you two questions; 1. have you (as the very experienced pilot I assume you to be) never inadvertently found yourself in IMC? And, 2. What the H*** has this got to do with the main discussion on this thread? Regards. Jp
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Apologies for the use of the red ink as I was not trying to be rude but was simply highlighting a couple of points that I had put to you for your consideration.
As for your questions.......
Q1 I am not an experienced pilot but am experienced aircrew and yes I have been involved in inadvertent entry into IMC and yes I know exactly how and why it happened and happily for me I am still here to talk about.
Q2 Considering your stance on this thread I think what I ask is relevant and worthy of some comment from you.
Now as regards my two questions...................
Regards
SFFP
Apologies for the use of the red ink as I was not trying to be rude but was simply highlighting a couple of points that I had put to you for your consideration.
As for your questions.......
Q1 I am not an experienced pilot but am experienced aircrew and yes I have been involved in inadvertent entry into IMC and yes I know exactly how and why it happened and happily for me I am still here to talk about.
Q2 Considering your stance on this thread I think what I ask is relevant and worthy of some comment from you.
Now as regards my two questions...................
Regards
SFFP
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Seldom. I am at a loss to understand your line in all this. Just so that i can see what it is you are getting at, are you suggesting that the Chinook crew entered IMC inadvertently. No more red lines please. JP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
As an Aircraft Captain on 32 Sqn for approx 14 years I flew with many Cpl Stewards (Male & Female) who were essential members of the Crew but had no input unless requested (except in emergency) into the decision making process on the Flight Deck.
JP has been posting regarding an Air Exercise "Invasion" of Sicily in 1954 when he was engaged in a Recce sortie in a Canberra. YOU have taken exception to the decisions that he has stated that he made and berated his Airmanship although you have NO experience of Piloting or Captaincy yourself.
May I point out that during the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943 now fewer than 146 American and 121 British Empire Squadrons were deployed. If only 25% of those were operating at once that would still mean having to avoid (without radar assistance) some 800 aircraft in the event of a low level abort and climb.
The Air Exercise in question in 1954 was based on the experiences of 1943 but also brought the US Navy 6th Fleet Aircraft Carriers into the equation - something that had not been present in 1943.
Finally, if JP will excuse me, may I point out that it would have been entirely possible for JP to have been a 19 year old Spitfire pilot based on Malta in 1943 who became a Recce pilot who took part in this exercise 11 years later at the age of 30.
As an Aircraft Captain on 32 Sqn for approx 14 years I flew with many Cpl Stewards (Male & Female) who were essential members of the Crew but had no input unless requested (except in emergency) into the decision making process on the Flight Deck.
JP has been posting regarding an Air Exercise "Invasion" of Sicily in 1954 when he was engaged in a Recce sortie in a Canberra. YOU have taken exception to the decisions that he has stated that he made and berated his Airmanship although you have NO experience of Piloting or Captaincy yourself.
May I point out that during the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943 now fewer than 146 American and 121 British Empire Squadrons were deployed. If only 25% of those were operating at once that would still mean having to avoid (without radar assistance) some 800 aircraft in the event of a low level abort and climb.
The Air Exercise in question in 1954 was based on the experiences of 1943 but also brought the US Navy 6th Fleet Aircraft Carriers into the equation - something that had not been present in 1943.
Finally, if JP will excuse me, may I point out that it would have been entirely possible for JP to have been a 19 year old Spitfire pilot based on Malta in 1943 who became a Recce pilot who took part in this exercise 11 years later at the age of 30.