Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Perhaps when Messr's Wratten and Day have apologised to the families for their outrageous misuse of power and the subsequent miscarriage of justice Brian may feel inclined to heed your words.
But as you previously said
'More smoke than Krakatao; more mirrors that the Great Hall of Versailles; more red herrings than a Shanghai trawler'
which I suspect is at the forefront of your current indignation
Perhaps when Messr's Wratten and Day have apologised to the families for their outrageous misuse of power and the subsequent miscarriage of justice Brian may feel inclined to heed your words.
But as you previously said
'More smoke than Krakatao; more mirrors that the Great Hall of Versailles; more red herrings than a Shanghai trawler'
which I suspect is at the forefront of your current indignation
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
Mr Purdey,
the error was made in public and so is the apology. If Mr Wratten wants the apology it is there for him to see. I have never stated I am infallable. When an error is made, or pointed out, I have always accepted responsibility and apologised where appropriate.
I have confidence in the submission to the SoS for Defence, but am grateful for your words of wisdom
Let's wait and see, shall we?
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
the error was made in public and so is the apology. If Mr Wratten wants the apology it is there for him to see. I have never stated I am infallable. When an error is made, or pointed out, I have always accepted responsibility and apologised where appropriate.
I have confidence in the submission to the SoS for Defence, but am grateful for your words of wisdom
Let's wait and see, shall we?
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Wratten and Day? Pair of jumped-up dipsticks who rose well above any level of competence they themselves thought they had. The pair of them deserve each other and I hope they rot in hell. I'm sure they will.
And no, I'm not apologising for saying so.
And no, I'm not apologising for saying so.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook helicopter crash Board of Inquiry
A short précis of how and why this discussion has continued for so long.
Bill Wratten
Bill Wratten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten GBE, CB, AFC (b. 15 August 1939) was Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of RAF Strike Command from 1994.
[edit]Flying career
Educated at Chatham House Grammar School in Ramsgate Wratten was the first Station Commander at RAF Stanley in the Falkland Islands after the 1982 war. He had previously served as Officer Commanding No. 23 Squadron, and went on to serve as, inter alia, Station Commander RAF Coningsby and Air Officer Commanding No. 11 Group.
As an Air Vice Marshal he was Air Commander British Forces Middle East from 17 November 1990 until the end of the Gulf War (as such he was the senior air force officer in Operation Granby).
[edit]Chinook helicopter crash Board of Inquiry
In 1995, following the Chinook Helicopter Crash on the Mull of Kintyre, Wratten was the Senior Reviewing Officer of the Board of Inquiry which had failed to find a cause of the accident. Despite a lack of Accident Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder, Wratten concluded that pilot error was the cause of the crash and found the pilots guilty of gross negligence[1]. Following a subsequent Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report, a House of Lords Select Committee was appointed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash and unanimously concluded "that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".[2] However, to date (Dec 08) the MoD has refused to alter the verdicts.
[edit]References
1. ^ Scotsman article
2. ^ Report from the Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 dated 31 Jan 02
Bill Wratten
Bill Wratten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten GBE, CB, AFC (b. 15 August 1939) was Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of RAF Strike Command from 1994.
[edit]Flying career
Educated at Chatham House Grammar School in Ramsgate Wratten was the first Station Commander at RAF Stanley in the Falkland Islands after the 1982 war. He had previously served as Officer Commanding No. 23 Squadron, and went on to serve as, inter alia, Station Commander RAF Coningsby and Air Officer Commanding No. 11 Group.
As an Air Vice Marshal he was Air Commander British Forces Middle East from 17 November 1990 until the end of the Gulf War (as such he was the senior air force officer in Operation Granby).
[edit]Chinook helicopter crash Board of Inquiry
In 1995, following the Chinook Helicopter Crash on the Mull of Kintyre, Wratten was the Senior Reviewing Officer of the Board of Inquiry which had failed to find a cause of the accident. Despite a lack of Accident Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder, Wratten concluded that pilot error was the cause of the crash and found the pilots guilty of gross negligence[1]. Following a subsequent Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report, a House of Lords Select Committee was appointed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash and unanimously concluded "that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".[2] However, to date (Dec 08) the MoD has refused to alter the verdicts.
[edit]References
1. ^ Scotsman article
2. ^ Report from the Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 dated 31 Jan 02
This was classic CFIT
The cause was 'Not Positively Determined' - except in the narrow minds of Wratten and Day.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFIT
In any case if it was "classic CFIT", is that always gross negligence?
Is this the crux of this particular aspect of the arguement?;
If it is, should we go back through the records and re classify all the possible CFIT incidents as gross negligence.?
i'd be interested to know the views of the "hang the guilty b@st@srds" posse.
DL
Is this the crux of this particular aspect of the arguement?;
If it is, should we go back through the records and re classify all the possible CFIT incidents as gross negligence.?
i'd be interested to know the views of the "hang the guilty b@st@srds" posse.
DL
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
BarbiesBoyfriend,
I pray that it will never happen to you.
God forbid it does, I hope you have friends that will stand up for you if they believe that you have been unjustly blamed.
I'm sure Mr Purdey has reminded you how stubborn and pig headed we all are
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I pray that it will never happen to you.
God forbid it does, I hope you have friends that will stand up for you if they believe that you have been unjustly blamed.
I'm sure Mr Purdey has reminded you how stubborn and pig headed we all are
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
BBF, The difference between this accident and a similar one that might befall you is that yours would be in an aircraft subject to a competent Airworthiness Authority and could therefore be reasonably assumed to be:
1. Of an airworthy aircraft type at the time and,
2. Be fitted with a Flight Recorder, thus greatly assisting the determination of the cause of the accident.
With this accident no such assumptions can be made as no such Airworthiness Authority presided.
As has been said above, despite these shortcomings and the inability of the BoI to determine the cause, Messrs Wratten and Day were still able to come to their infamous finding. You seem to share their decisive ability to see the truth that evades all others. Have you ever considered a career as a Senior RAF Officer? You would seem eminently well qualified.
1. Of an airworthy aircraft type at the time and,
2. Be fitted with a Flight Recorder, thus greatly assisting the determination of the cause of the accident.
With this accident no such assumptions can be made as no such Airworthiness Authority presided.
As has been said above, despite these shortcomings and the inability of the BoI to determine the cause, Messrs Wratten and Day were still able to come to their infamous finding. You seem to share their decisive ability to see the truth that evades all others. Have you ever considered a career as a Senior RAF Officer? You would seem eminently well qualified.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not foolish enough to think I'll change anyones mind on here.
However, if I banjoed my aircraft into the Mull while doing a bit of a low level navex in marginal conditions I sincerely doubt there'd be 188 pages on pprune arguing about whether or not there could be some other explanation for my accident than the obvious one.
I'd be dead so not at all bothered and you splendid RAF chaps, if you thought about me at all, would regard me as a bit of an idiot who had the classic VFR into IMC accident that claims PPLs every year.
And you know what? You'd be right!
However, if I banjoed my aircraft into the Mull while doing a bit of a low level navex in marginal conditions I sincerely doubt there'd be 188 pages on pprune arguing about whether or not there could be some other explanation for my accident than the obvious one.
I'd be dead so not at all bothered and you splendid RAF chaps, if you thought about me at all, would regard me as a bit of an idiot who had the classic VFR into IMC accident that claims PPLs every year.
And you know what? You'd be right!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBF,
Just a humble thought but based on the scenario you put forward you meant to type
"And you know what? You'd probably be right!
After all with the obvious lack of conclusive evidence available it would appear rather difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was actually your fault that you crashed, or am I missing something here?
Just a humble thought but based on the scenario you put forward you meant to type
"And you know what? You'd probably be right!
After all with the obvious lack of conclusive evidence available it would appear rather difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was actually your fault that you crashed, or am I missing something here?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round the Bouy Again!
BBF,
I had hoped to stay out of this debate whilst the MOD looked at the evidence again, but given that John Purdey seems to have forgotten his own commitment not to comment further and you are contributing to further circular arguments I feel I need to join in again!
If indeed you were to "banjo" your aircraft into the hillside "whilst doing a low level Navex in marginal weather conditions" (a situation that did not apply to this flight anyway) your last thoughts might indeed be "what a **** I am to have got myself into this position." On the other hand if, as a specialist SF crew (which you seem to be happy to equate to PPL holders) well used to such conditions, you had pointed out that the aircraft you had been asked to fly on what was essentially a civil passenger flight was not fit for purpose, and, having failed, for reasons beyond your control, to make the planned turn as selected for the next waypoint, you were struggling to get over the hill you knew was in front of you with an uncommanded engine run-up, or a jammed control crate or just the distraction of a "known" (in RTS terms) false engine fail indication you might well be having different thoughts! Actually, more likely you entire thoughts would be devoted to trying to get out of an impossible situation!
I do not know which of these scenarios, or indeed any other scenario, applied - nor do you and, more importantly, and by his own admission, nor did the Senior Reviewing Officer - who then went way beyond the findings of the BoI in his own findings. Given this, whilst you may well still think that this was a pilot error accident - and you may even be right, this is not the basis for finding two pilots who are not there to defend themselves guilty of gross negligence (effectively the crime of manslaughter). That is what these 188 pages are meant to be about - and if you had been the victim of this gross injustice I am sure you would want to see your family, friends and professional colleagues fight to put it right - even if, as you put it, you were not there to care about the verdict.
As to the true cause of this accident it is a fact that "no-one will ever know" - a position acknowledged by the House of Lords Select Committee who did not accept the gross negligence findings and, dare I say it, were eminently more qualified than you, and a did a great deal more investigation of the facts, including listening to the full submissions of the Reviewing Officers, to make such a judgement. The were also prepared to make it under their own names!
JB
I had hoped to stay out of this debate whilst the MOD looked at the evidence again, but given that John Purdey seems to have forgotten his own commitment not to comment further and you are contributing to further circular arguments I feel I need to join in again!
If indeed you were to "banjo" your aircraft into the hillside "whilst doing a low level Navex in marginal weather conditions" (a situation that did not apply to this flight anyway) your last thoughts might indeed be "what a **** I am to have got myself into this position." On the other hand if, as a specialist SF crew (which you seem to be happy to equate to PPL holders) well used to such conditions, you had pointed out that the aircraft you had been asked to fly on what was essentially a civil passenger flight was not fit for purpose, and, having failed, for reasons beyond your control, to make the planned turn as selected for the next waypoint, you were struggling to get over the hill you knew was in front of you with an uncommanded engine run-up, or a jammed control crate or just the distraction of a "known" (in RTS terms) false engine fail indication you might well be having different thoughts! Actually, more likely you entire thoughts would be devoted to trying to get out of an impossible situation!
I do not know which of these scenarios, or indeed any other scenario, applied - nor do you and, more importantly, and by his own admission, nor did the Senior Reviewing Officer - who then went way beyond the findings of the BoI in his own findings. Given this, whilst you may well still think that this was a pilot error accident - and you may even be right, this is not the basis for finding two pilots who are not there to defend themselves guilty of gross negligence (effectively the crime of manslaughter). That is what these 188 pages are meant to be about - and if you had been the victim of this gross injustice I am sure you would want to see your family, friends and professional colleagues fight to put it right - even if, as you put it, you were not there to care about the verdict.
As to the true cause of this accident it is a fact that "no-one will ever know" - a position acknowledged by the House of Lords Select Committee who did not accept the gross negligence findings and, dare I say it, were eminently more qualified than you, and a did a great deal more investigation of the facts, including listening to the full submissions of the Reviewing Officers, to make such a judgement. The were also prepared to make it under their own names!
JB
BBF,
As a PPL who takes considerable interest in such things I can tell you that the "classic VFR into IMC" fatal accidents by PPL's in the UK are caused by inadeqately equipped pilots not qualified to operate in IMC. Hardly a description of Cook and Tapper, although it would appear that "inadequately equipped" might be relevant.
Surely, the benefit of the considerable doubt in this case should be given to the pilots if only on the basis of their experience and qualifications to fly in the prevailing conditions. If you add the doubt about the state of their equipment, the case for a more just verdict is surely made.
the classic VFR into IMC accident that claims PPLs every year.
Surely, the benefit of the considerable doubt in this case should be given to the pilots if only on the basis of their experience and qualifications to fly in the prevailing conditions. If you add the doubt about the state of their equipment, the case for a more just verdict is surely made.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
John Blakeley. I rejoined, not to discuss the cause(s) of the accident, on which I have nothing new to say, but because the exchanges had moved on to make serious personal accusations. With all good wishes. JP
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFIT
BBF
quote:
"I'd be dead so not at all bothered and you splendid RAF chaps, if you thought about me at all, would regard me as a bit of an idiot who had the classic VFR into IMC accident that claims PPLs every year."
I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of the Junior Service, but I daresay that you may be dead but as in the case of the Mull of Kyntyre accident there would be plenty of grieving relatives and friends and aviation professionals asking "how and why?"
As for the splendid RAF chaps regarding you as a bit of an idiot for a classic VFR into IMC accident..you clearly do not know many RAF chaps who are splendid enough.
It might be said that your interpretation of this "classic IMC into VMC" accident (whatever that is?) is pretty much the same conclusion as Wratten and Day came up with, it says more about them than it does about you.
The point is, how do you, they, anyone, know if this was CFIT and certainly not a straightforward VMC/IMC accident, unless you were there, then; how could you?
I'm glad that you have brought the issue up again, around the bouy or not it keeps the topic alive, and likewise i'm glad WK is back, he may have some wacky ideas but he does make us think about it from another POV.
I have still to see a satisfactory explanation of the Lowther Hill and fishing boat issues raised by Walt.
rgds
DL
quote:
"I'd be dead so not at all bothered and you splendid RAF chaps, if you thought about me at all, would regard me as a bit of an idiot who had the classic VFR into IMC accident that claims PPLs every year."
I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of the Junior Service, but I daresay that you may be dead but as in the case of the Mull of Kyntyre accident there would be plenty of grieving relatives and friends and aviation professionals asking "how and why?"
As for the splendid RAF chaps regarding you as a bit of an idiot for a classic VFR into IMC accident..you clearly do not know many RAF chaps who are splendid enough.
It might be said that your interpretation of this "classic IMC into VMC" accident (whatever that is?) is pretty much the same conclusion as Wratten and Day came up with, it says more about them than it does about you.
The point is, how do you, they, anyone, know if this was CFIT and certainly not a straightforward VMC/IMC accident, unless you were there, then; how could you?
I'm glad that you have brought the issue up again, around the bouy or not it keeps the topic alive, and likewise i'm glad WK is back, he may have some wacky ideas but he does make us think about it from another POV.
I have still to see a satisfactory explanation of the Lowther Hill and fishing boat issues raised by Walt.
rgds
DL
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
John Purdey said:
You seem to be glibly forgetting that the whole point of this thread is because the person/s you wish to defend did just that. Their advantage is that both of them are still on this earth to defend themselves here and anywhere else, if they so wish. The crew they accused are not. 
but because the exchanges had moved on to make serious personal accusations.