Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry this is going to cause you more plodding Brian.
I suppose though, that it sorta defines what we suspected DB would do - drag his feet again.
I am sure everyone wishes you, and Lord O'Neill, well in getting John Hutton to take great strides to get this new thorn in his side removed as quickly as possible.
Make JH understand what an irritating sod can be like!
I suppose though, that it sorta defines what we suspected DB would do - drag his feet again.
I am sure everyone wishes you, and Lord O'Neill, well in getting John Hutton to take great strides to get this new thorn in his side removed as quickly as possible.
Make JH understand what an irritating sod can be like!
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
Hi everyone,
Well.... I've lost count of the number of Secretaries of State for Defence we have now been through. I wonder when we will get one with enough mettle to actually take a hold of this injustice and right the wrongs.
I have to admit to being very disappointed in Mr Browne. Upon submission of our now long-standing document, he gave an assurance that the matter would be given his personal attention and that a decision would be made in a relatively quick period. Now, ten months later, here we go again!
The Chinook Campaign has, throughout this time, behaved with both dignity and integrity, and I see no reason to change that now. However, I now call upon the MoD and Mr John Hutton to do the same and accept that which has been staring them in the face for years - there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict of gross negligence.
As part of his initial briefing, I would hope that someone includes the advice, "Minister, there's this little issue that simply won't go away. Perhaps you should take a look". I would add my own advice to Mr Hutton - We will not go away until this injustice is put right. When, oh when, will the MoD realise that
Airworthiness is, of course, an issue concerning several terrible accidents. However, I feel that each incident should be presented to the MoD, and Mr Hutton, by those best placed to present their particular case. After all, why should it be only our magnificent service people who are forced to fight on more than one front!
The Chinook Campaign will, of course, be meeting to discuss this new twist in the tale, and I will update everyone as soon as I am able.
May I thank you all for your continued support and for your patience.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Well.... I've lost count of the number of Secretaries of State for Defence we have now been through. I wonder when we will get one with enough mettle to actually take a hold of this injustice and right the wrongs.
I have to admit to being very disappointed in Mr Browne. Upon submission of our now long-standing document, he gave an assurance that the matter would be given his personal attention and that a decision would be made in a relatively quick period. Now, ten months later, here we go again!
The Chinook Campaign has, throughout this time, behaved with both dignity and integrity, and I see no reason to change that now. However, I now call upon the MoD and Mr John Hutton to do the same and accept that which has been staring them in the face for years - there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict of gross negligence.
As part of his initial briefing, I would hope that someone includes the advice, "Minister, there's this little issue that simply won't go away. Perhaps you should take a look". I would add my own advice to Mr Hutton - We will not go away until this injustice is put right. When, oh when, will the MoD realise that
Airworthiness is, of course, an issue concerning several terrible accidents. However, I feel that each incident should be presented to the MoD, and Mr Hutton, by those best placed to present their particular case. After all, why should it be only our magnificent service people who are forced to fight on more than one front!
The Chinook Campaign will, of course, be meeting to discuss this new twist in the tale, and I will update everyone as soon as I am able.
May I thank you all for your continued support and for your patience.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the day after the accident that Jeremy Hanley told the assembled press that as armed forces minister he would ensure the investigation was prompt and the answer would be found forthwith. Fourteen years on, he, his boss Malcolm Rifkind and his boss' boss John Major all say the answer that was found - gross negligence - was wrong and the findings against Jon and Rick must be set aside. Sir John in particular is supreme in his clarity on this point.
Almost all who served in office now publicly disagree with the finding they were unable to change. Give him a couple of weeks but Des Browne would be a fine interview for Jon Snow. I think he did want to change it, like his predecessors but couldn't. And it is that terrifying gut conclusion that worries me most. Who is running the MoD? Elected officials or the permanent government of Whitehall?
I vote for a dignified ramping up of the campaign. Brian is right - this isn't going away. The MoD know it too but are given a break every time the SoS changes. It's Yes Minister, the gilded version. When I helped brief Crispin Blunt, Rob Key and James Arbuthnot three years after the tragedy, they were stunned by the submission. The permanent government had never given them the information and they, God Bless them, have fought tooth and nail in opposition to affect change, to right this wrong.
I say put all the intervening Parliamentarians who have been exposed to the FULL briefing before a microphone. Let us hear from them again publicly. Almost to a man (and in the Lords, women) they know AP3207 was neither applied nor met.
Almost all who served in office now publicly disagree with the finding they were unable to change. Give him a couple of weeks but Des Browne would be a fine interview for Jon Snow. I think he did want to change it, like his predecessors but couldn't. And it is that terrifying gut conclusion that worries me most. Who is running the MoD? Elected officials or the permanent government of Whitehall?
I vote for a dignified ramping up of the campaign. Brian is right - this isn't going away. The MoD know it too but are given a break every time the SoS changes. It's Yes Minister, the gilded version. When I helped brief Crispin Blunt, Rob Key and James Arbuthnot three years after the tragedy, they were stunned by the submission. The permanent government had never given them the information and they, God Bless them, have fought tooth and nail in opposition to affect change, to right this wrong.
I say put all the intervening Parliamentarians who have been exposed to the FULL briefing before a microphone. Let us hear from them again publicly. Almost to a man (and in the Lords, women) they know AP3207 was neither applied nor met.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree:
"Minister, there's this little issue that simply won't go away. Perhaps you should take a look". I would add my own advice to Mr Hutton - We will not go away until this injustice is put right. When, oh when, will the MoD realise that
It matters not how many people fill the shoes, Justice will prevail.
"Minister, there's this little issue that simply won't go away. Perhaps you should take a look". I would add my own advice to Mr Hutton - We will not go away until this injustice is put right. When, oh when, will the MoD realise that
It matters not how many people fill the shoes, Justice will prevail.
Brian Dixon:
Which War, Front or Battle this campaign commits to is of course the business of those who do the fighting. As an Armchair ex-Cold War Warrior (all derogatory terms in the PPRuNe lexicon I believe) far be it from me to attempt to direct them to do otherwise. I would suggest, however, that the "Airworthiness Issue" is very much on the same front, though perhaps in a Strategic rather than Tactical sense. As to your why? Brian, I would say that the worthy aim of this thread, the rightful restoration of the reputations of two gallant officers, would be even more worthy if it also helped to reinstate the proper provision of Airworthiness to the UK Military Airfleets now known to be so severely and deliberately reduced by command of Senior Officers at the MOD. Such reinstatement would mean lives being saved in the future, by avoiding avoidable accidents such as the one which is the subject of this thread.
Airworthiness is, of course, an issue concerning several terrible accidents. However, I feel that each incident should be presented to the MoD, and Mr Hutton, by those best placed to present their particular case. After all, why should it be only our magnificent service people who are forced to fight on more than one front!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New SoS
Brian,
You referred to a "new twist in the tale". Is there not now also an opportunity to twist the tail of the new SoS in a slightly different area?
Whilst I entirely agree that the airworthiness "policy" needs to be amended in order to avoid future loss of life, can the point not also be made that the sheer financial costs of these losses (and their aftermaths) should also be avoided?
Or perhaps that doesn't count in the eyes of a government which has, it seems, suddenly discovered an apparently limitless supply of cash with which to bail out the grotesquely incompetent banking industry. Perhaps the true problem is that our Armed Forces are just too competent to merit consideration!
All power to your elbow in dealing with yet another new incumbent.
You referred to a "new twist in the tale". Is there not now also an opportunity to twist the tail of the new SoS in a slightly different area?
Whilst I entirely agree that the airworthiness "policy" needs to be amended in order to avoid future loss of life, can the point not also be made that the sheer financial costs of these losses (and their aftermaths) should also be avoided?
Or perhaps that doesn't count in the eyes of a government which has, it seems, suddenly discovered an apparently limitless supply of cash with which to bail out the grotesquely incompetent banking industry. Perhaps the true problem is that our Armed Forces are just too competent to merit consideration!
All power to your elbow in dealing with yet another new incumbent.
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
Hi everyone.
Chugalug2 - I certainly agree with your comments about lives being saved, and I hope that the combined efforts of all those currently in dispute with the MoD bring about a common result. Perhaps it has already started, as evidenced by the MoD's reluctance to introduce the Chinook HC3 into service.
Airworthiness is, as I'm sure all will agree, vital, but I can't comment too much as our document has been with the MoD for 'a short while' now and we have given our word not to discuss its content yet.
For those with access to the BBC iPlayer, you might like to take a look at this report:
BBC iPlayer - Newsnight Scotland: 09/10/2008
The Chinook issue is discussed from 16:10 minutes in.
I hope it brings you all up to date as to where we are at the moment.
Thank you, as always, for your patience and your support.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Chugalug2 - I certainly agree with your comments about lives being saved, and I hope that the combined efforts of all those currently in dispute with the MoD bring about a common result. Perhaps it has already started, as evidenced by the MoD's reluctance to introduce the Chinook HC3 into service.
Airworthiness is, as I'm sure all will agree, vital, but I can't comment too much as our document has been with the MoD for 'a short while' now and we have given our word not to discuss its content yet.
For those with access to the BBC iPlayer, you might like to take a look at this report:
BBC iPlayer - Newsnight Scotland: 09/10/2008
The Chinook issue is discussed from 16:10 minutes in.
I hope it brings you all up to date as to where we are at the moment.
Thank you, as always, for your patience and your support.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thank you for the link Brian. The piece is indeed succinct and compelling, especially the summarisation that the RAF's prime policy is the defence of its higher command, right or wrong. How many bells that sets chiming! My concern though is with:
I presume the "for 'a short while'" is ironic, but the crunch word is of course; "yet". I hope that has been defined, and if not will be so defined forthwith. The high standards this thread, this campaign, and you personally stand for Brian are not necessarily shared elsewhere. If further lives are to be saved by the drastic reform of Military Airworthiness Regulation then time is of the essence. That is not a preoccupation seemingly felt by the Ministry of Defence.
our document has been with the MoD for 'a short while' now and we have given our word not to discuss its content yet.
While I have only limited knowledge on this whole tragic event & aftermath, those who can continue to have an input (Brian Dixon etc) should be afforded a free hand throughout.
The RAF to my knowledge is shortly to have a new CAS, well top of his `things to do list`, surely should be a complete new & unbiased look at the whole event & the following enquiry. Forget any help from the present Defence Secretary & his cronies, his total lack of any respect & consideration for the armed forces is shamefull.
I will admit though,that many years ago during my own military service, I had reason to work closely with the then Defence Secretary Roy Mason & also Merlin Rees, although from the Labour benches, both these two had great respect & feeling for all our service personnel. These two had what is so badly lacking within the present political area, integrity & trust.
Keep at this one folks, the truth will come out eventually.
The RAF to my knowledge is shortly to have a new CAS, well top of his `things to do list`, surely should be a complete new & unbiased look at the whole event & the following enquiry. Forget any help from the present Defence Secretary & his cronies, his total lack of any respect & consideration for the armed forces is shamefull.
I will admit though,that many years ago during my own military service, I had reason to work closely with the then Defence Secretary Roy Mason & also Merlin Rees, although from the Labour benches, both these two had great respect & feeling for all our service personnel. These two had what is so badly lacking within the present political area, integrity & trust.
Keep at this one folks, the truth will come out eventually.
Hi K76,
"The RAF to my knowledge is shortly to have a new CAS, well top of his `things to do list`, surely should be a complete new & unbiased look at the whole event & the following enquiry."
Alas, any "club" such as the Masons, any Political party, any major Corporate entity - and the RAF/Navy/Army - have "rules" which prevent such open-ness. Tis a fact of life. Lets face it ... the current global economic crisis sees an ex-Chancellor, who should have been watching the greed which fueled the current crisis and should have done something about it then, rather than pontificating as PM now, which illustrates this to the core. Like the AVMs, the PM can't own up that, under his watch as Chancellor, a major fiscal cock-up took place - or, rather, was set up!
Call me a cynic but……! In this world, protectionism is rife. What was it that was said following the Alaskan MD-83 accident by an FAA official? “If you really want to whistle-blow (ie tell the truth) in this (aviation) industry, make sure you don’t want to remain in the industry any longer!” I have paraphrased the quote – but it was words to that effect!
Mmmm, tis an interestingly ethical world we live in!
Cheers, H ‘n’ H.
"The RAF to my knowledge is shortly to have a new CAS, well top of his `things to do list`, surely should be a complete new & unbiased look at the whole event & the following enquiry."
Alas, any "club" such as the Masons, any Political party, any major Corporate entity - and the RAF/Navy/Army - have "rules" which prevent such open-ness. Tis a fact of life. Lets face it ... the current global economic crisis sees an ex-Chancellor, who should have been watching the greed which fueled the current crisis and should have done something about it then, rather than pontificating as PM now, which illustrates this to the core. Like the AVMs, the PM can't own up that, under his watch as Chancellor, a major fiscal cock-up took place - or, rather, was set up!
Call me a cynic but……! In this world, protectionism is rife. What was it that was said following the Alaskan MD-83 accident by an FAA official? “If you really want to whistle-blow (ie tell the truth) in this (aviation) industry, make sure you don’t want to remain in the industry any longer!” I have paraphrased the quote – but it was words to that effect!
Mmmm, tis an interestingly ethical world we live in!
Cheers, H ‘n’ H.
Call me a cynic but……! In this world, protectionism is rife. What was it that was said following the Alaskan MD-83 accident by an FAA official? “If you really want to whistle-blow (ie tell the truth) in this (aviation) industry, make sure you don’t want to remain in the industry any longer!” I have paraphrased the quote – but it was words to that effect!
Very true Hot’n’High. The only thing I’d add is “i.e. tell the truth about wrongdoing”, because a bus was deliberately driven through the airworthiness regulations and the rules governing BoIs by people who had a legal obligation to comply with them.
And, while I respect the belated change of heart by the likes of John Major and Malcolm Rifkind, the fact remains they spoke up after they relinquished power (or were booted out). Even at that level, if you fight from within you’re for the chop.
The inevitable result can be seen in the recent Nimrod and Hercules verdicts. Different aircraft, different roles, different causes (as far as we know) but just one step up the airworthiness and safety ladder of responsibility and you get to precisely the same few names in MoD. In case my view isn’t clear, I don’t agree with their, admittedly consistent, rulings that implementing the airworthiness regs is optional and you must face the consequences if you disobey an order to ignore them and refuse to make a false declaration that you have complied. (MoD(PE) / DPA 2* in charge of Chinook, and all his bosses). As he said to me in a letter of Dec 2000, if you don’t like it, get another job.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Huntingdon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valkyriejmp
With reference to the Chinook crash: I'm an engineer and during my time I have had to collect a few ex-people from hills and holes in the ground. In almost every case we engineers were the first to be blamed. I have found in extensive flying around the world that if you fly above the ground ahead, it is impossible to hit it. I have flown a lot in Chinooks and "suffered" the terrain matching flying that is great fun until a solid object appears on the nose. The aircraft in question was not cleared to transit at that altitude and collided with the first bit of solid object after crossing the sea. I can not comment on the specific facts, as I suggest many of the posters in this thread can not do. However, I know from bitter experience that engineering is the first port of call for crashes, especially where deaths are involved. For the board to so clearly state the cause as pilot error makes it clear to me that there was absolutely no other cause of action. Sorry, but using emotion to follow a political path is not on.
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
Welcome to the thread, Valkyriejmp. Especially as you chose this one to make your first post. Let's have a look at what you have written shall we?
On Chinooks?
During the introduction into service of the HC2?
Sat in the back, with little input or knowledge of what was going on at the front end? Did you report this 'maverick behaviour' upon landing? If not, why not?
Then go away and read what facts are available. Look specifically at the rules in place at the time of the accident, the introduction into service of the Chinook HC2 and the history of the documented problems that were rife in the fleet at that time.
The Board didn't. The Reviewing Officers did (after reading the same evidence as the Board).
I totally agree. That is why the Campaign is based upon dealing in factual evidence and rules in place at the time - rules that were in place to protect deceased aircrew. It is an apolitical campaign - our current Chair is a Labour Peer, who took over from a Conservative MP. There is no hidden aganda.
I would urge you to read all the available evidence (if you have the time), and must point out that I have no objection to your opposing viewpoint to mine. However, please don't base your opinion on defending engineers, we have no issue with engineers. The issue is that the rules in place at the time were clearly broken by those who should have known better.
This whole Campaign is about justice. Justice for those who have been wronged and are not in a position to defend themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'm an engineer
During the introduction into service of the HC2?
I have flown a lot in Chinooks and "suffered" the terrain matching flying that is great fun until a solid object appears on the nose.
I can not comment on the specific facts
For the board to so clearly state the cause as pilot error
Sorry, but using emotion to follow a political path is not on
I would urge you to read all the available evidence (if you have the time), and must point out that I have no objection to your opposing viewpoint to mine. However, please don't base your opinion on defending engineers, we have no issue with engineers. The issue is that the rules in place at the time were clearly broken by those who should have known better.
This whole Campaign is about justice. Justice for those who have been wronged and are not in a position to defend themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it Valkyriejmp that you were/are an engineer on Chinooks. If you were/are you will realise there are many imponderables that may have caused the Mull crash, one of which may have been aircrew error. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence to exactly what caused the accident the crew must be cleared of any blame.
I to speak as an engineer (an ex one) who spent over a decade working on Chinooks, including being on 7 at the time of the accident. I have flown with the deceased pilots on a number of occasions including at low level and (as with all Chinook crews) I never observed any behaviours that could be deemed dangerous, you may deem it 'great fun', as many are doing it now in theatre(s) others may call it 'operationally essential'.
Valkyriejmp please review this thread I think after doing so you will come to the same conclusion as the majority of posters here that Rick & Jon should be cleared.
I to speak as an engineer (an ex one) who spent over a decade working on Chinooks, including being on 7 at the time of the accident. I have flown with the deceased pilots on a number of occasions including at low level and (as with all Chinook crews) I never observed any behaviours that could be deemed dangerous, you may deem it 'great fun', as many are doing it now in theatre(s) others may call it 'operationally essential'.
Valkyriejmp please review this thread I think after doing so you will come to the same conclusion as the majority of posters here that Rick & Jon should be cleared.
“ONLY IN CASES IN WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER SHOULD DECEASED AIRCREW BE FOUND NEGLIGENT”
AP3207 – RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, page 9.
Have a look here for further info:The Campaign for Justice for the Pilots of ZD576 (Brian hasn't plugged his own website so I will.)
Hallo Valkyriejmp
I was going to rush in with a denunciation of your maiden post (‘maiden’ with that name, at any rate), but then I thought that if I waited a bit, someone would probably do a better job of replying than I. And sure enough, Brian came scything in with his customary unassailable points, and his unwavering courtesy. And now the Man on the Odium Train, with further good points.
I would, though, like to add another thought. You see, it all seems a tiny bit strange. You’ve
you’ve carried out
and you’ve
So, despite your marginally tasteless turn of phrase, I think we can assume you’re not a spotty eighteen year old. (Sorry, that was probably an ‘acne-ist’ remark.) And yet, in the six years plus, and 3,678 posts of this thread (to say nothing of previous threads on the same subject), this is the first time you’ve seen fit to post anything. Not only that, but you don’t seem to have read any of that plethora of information that was readily available to you.
So, I wonder who you really are. It couldn’t be, could it, that someone put you up to writing your post, someone who might be getting a touche concerned about the way things are going? Or possibly, (be still my heart) could it even be that you are actually that person? Or am I veering way too far towards the conspiracy side of the possibilities, when all along the lack of rigour in your argument was really just due to cockup?
Go on, give us a clue. Tell us some more about yourself.
airsound
I was going to rush in with a denunciation of your maiden post (‘maiden’ with that name, at any rate), but then I thought that if I waited a bit, someone would probably do a better job of replying than I. And sure enough, Brian came scything in with his customary unassailable points, and his unwavering courtesy. And now the Man on the Odium Train, with further good points.
I would, though, like to add another thought. You see, it all seems a tiny bit strange. You’ve
flown a lot in Chinooks
extensive flying around the world
had to collect a few ex-people from hills and holes in the ground.
So, I wonder who you really are. It couldn’t be, could it, that someone put you up to writing your post, someone who might be getting a touche concerned about the way things are going? Or possibly, (be still my heart) could it even be that you are actually that person? Or am I veering way too far towards the conspiracy side of the possibilities, when all along the lack of rigour in your argument was really just due to cockup?
Go on, give us a clue. Tell us some more about yourself.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 3rd Nov 2008 at 18:44. Reason: spelling
Valkyriejmp:
Wow, that's such a good Username you've chosen! Isn't it a bit of a waste though for its one and only use, or may we expect some more? The deriding of emotion is a bit of a sy slip, I'm afraid. You see your chums have already fielded that one in trying to discredit Chappie on the Parliamentary thread. Big mistake, someone should have warned them, as they should have warned you. Low posts are a bit of a giveaway you see, and maiden posts you might just as well hang up with neon lights and big flashing arrows.
As to:
That had me puzzled as it seemed such an obvious typo, ie you meant course, but you chaps don't do typos, do you? Could it be a Freudian slip? As has been pointed out the BoI did not find the cause to be pilot error, Wratten & Day did. I have often wondered what was the cause of their action. Perhaps you know?
Sorry, but using emotion to follow a political path is not on.
As to:
makes it clear to me that there was absolutely no other cause of action.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 3rd Nov 2008 at 19:24. Reason: Correcting spelling of V's so good Username
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never ceases to amaze me how (on this thread) denunciation turns so quickly to denigration - almost as if it was an orchestrated response. Are those that instigate this so unsure of their case that this has become an automatic practice?
Much has been made of the lack of paperwork associated with the introduction of the Mk 2 into Service - something that I have experienced on more than one occasion. I remember DG and I delivering 2 Mk3 Jet Provosts to Aldergrove for upgrade and collecting the first 2 Jet Provost 3A's to take back to Leeming. We sat in those cockpits for 10-15 minutes and then we both unstrapped, got out and said to the groundcrew "How the **** do you turn these radios on?" It took 30 mins before they found someone who knew!!
There was NO paperwork (including Pilots notes and FRC's) for those aircraft -nor was there paperwork 10 years later for a different type of aircraft;one was that totally new to RAF service.
At the end of the day the Aircraft Captain is the guy who gets to wear the badge that says "The Buck Stops Here". He is the one who can say "NO" if he believes it is unsafe - and "YES" I have said "NO" (even to Mrs T/CDS/CAS etc).
PS My opening remarks DO NOT apply to Brian!!
Much has been made of the lack of paperwork associated with the introduction of the Mk 2 into Service - something that I have experienced on more than one occasion. I remember DG and I delivering 2 Mk3 Jet Provosts to Aldergrove for upgrade and collecting the first 2 Jet Provost 3A's to take back to Leeming. We sat in those cockpits for 10-15 minutes and then we both unstrapped, got out and said to the groundcrew "How the **** do you turn these radios on?" It took 30 mins before they found someone who knew!!
There was NO paperwork (including Pilots notes and FRC's) for those aircraft -nor was there paperwork 10 years later for a different type of aircraft;one was that totally new to RAF service.
At the end of the day the Aircraft Captain is the guy who gets to wear the badge that says "The Buck Stops Here". He is the one who can say "NO" if he believes it is unsafe - and "YES" I have said "NO" (even to Mrs T/CDS/CAS etc).
PS My opening remarks DO NOT apply to Brian!!
Last edited by cazatou; 4th Nov 2008 at 12:27.
I'll only respond to your opening remarks Caz, as they were obviously aimed at me. If I have wrongly ascribed motives to Valkyriejmp, then I unreservedly apologise. In explanation, though possibly not mitigation, I would point out that similar posts to his appeared on both the Nimrod and Hercules threads at a similar stage, ie when the issue of Airworthiness deficiencies in those respective accidents was raised. Like his such posts were penned by low/maiden posting members offering little other than to slate the direction that the thread was taking. One particular contributor even managed a veiled threat of the invoking of the OSA!
So if I have misconstrued your contribution, Valkyriejmp, then I am sorry. Of course you have a perfect right to express your views if they be that, as have we all. Perhaps Brian could publish some advice on remaining cool calm and collected while countering every weak and incorrect post, and always with impeccable politeness of course!
So if I have misconstrued your contribution, Valkyriejmp, then I am sorry. Of course you have a perfect right to express your views if they be that, as have we all. Perhaps Brian could publish some advice on remaining cool calm and collected while countering every weak and incorrect post, and always with impeccable politeness of course!
M. Cazatou - you of all people should know that there is no need for an orchestrated response. Like the best sommeliers, we all have olfactory processes that are always ready to detect the faintest sniff of something not quite right.
So it shouldn't be too much of a stretch when we all detect at the same time something a bit corked.
Btw, I'm not quite sure what not knowing how to turn the radio on in a Jet Provost has to do with putting a new and not fully tested Chinook on operations....?
airsound
So it shouldn't be too much of a stretch when we all detect at the same time something a bit corked.
Btw, I'm not quite sure what not knowing how to turn the radio on in a Jet Provost has to do with putting a new and not fully tested Chinook on operations....?
airsound