Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
The aircraft Boscombe referred to in their correspondence was part of the PE Fleet, under "contract" (tasking in those days) to MoD(PE). “Boscombe” in this sense was part of MoD(PE) – hence “PE Fleet”. Their first duty was to their customer and would, quite properly, write to the PE Project Director on such a safety matter – which they did. Frequently.
When reading the correspondence, it is clear this is not the first time Boscombe have made such a recommendation. They were clearly exasperated at being ignored – I discussed this in a previous post about the obvious breakdown in relations between Boscombe, PE and RAF. We all know when this happens you make damn sure everything is formal and in writing. (And, if possible, as ex-Commissioner Ian Blair would agree, on tape. I do not jest). From Boscombe’s viewpoint, they had been systematically ignored by their own MoD colleagues, despite offering consistently good advice.
So, it was proper to write to PE (the project director) as it is HIS job to deal with HIS customer (the RAF) and bridge any gap between the PE Fleet build standard discussed by Boscombe, and the relevance of the comments to the In Use build standard employed by the RAF. (Which is why it is vital to maintain the build standard, a mandated requirement routinely ignored by PE and, especially, the RAF). It was for DHP to advise and discuss with RAF, NOT Boscombe. If they had dealt direct with the RAF, they would have been in breach of their contract/tasking. There’s more to this obviously, as at a working level RAF staff were embedded in Boscombe, and it would be extremely naďve to think the RAF didn’t know what was going on.
As a minor and slightly mundane aside, any letter from Boscombe would, at the time, have probably reached the recipient in St Giles Court quicker than a fax or telex. The advent of the “computer age” in about 1992 gave the BCs a ready made excuse to get shot of secretarial support, typing pools, writers, messengers and so on, but the necessary replacement technology (i.e. e-mails and integrated PCs) was not in place until 1996. The fax machine (singular) was, I can assure you, shared between scores of offices, was on a different floor, was invariably behind locked door (due to there being no up to date security regs covering such technology, so just to be on the safe side………) and the resultant printouts were usually illegible anyway. Yes, a formal letter was the correct thing to do all round.
When reading the correspondence, it is clear this is not the first time Boscombe have made such a recommendation. They were clearly exasperated at being ignored – I discussed this in a previous post about the obvious breakdown in relations between Boscombe, PE and RAF. We all know when this happens you make damn sure everything is formal and in writing. (And, if possible, as ex-Commissioner Ian Blair would agree, on tape. I do not jest). From Boscombe’s viewpoint, they had been systematically ignored by their own MoD colleagues, despite offering consistently good advice.
So, it was proper to write to PE (the project director) as it is HIS job to deal with HIS customer (the RAF) and bridge any gap between the PE Fleet build standard discussed by Boscombe, and the relevance of the comments to the In Use build standard employed by the RAF. (Which is why it is vital to maintain the build standard, a mandated requirement routinely ignored by PE and, especially, the RAF). It was for DHP to advise and discuss with RAF, NOT Boscombe. If they had dealt direct with the RAF, they would have been in breach of their contract/tasking. There’s more to this obviously, as at a working level RAF staff were embedded in Boscombe, and it would be extremely naďve to think the RAF didn’t know what was going on.
As a minor and slightly mundane aside, any letter from Boscombe would, at the time, have probably reached the recipient in St Giles Court quicker than a fax or telex. The advent of the “computer age” in about 1992 gave the BCs a ready made excuse to get shot of secretarial support, typing pools, writers, messengers and so on, but the necessary replacement technology (i.e. e-mails and integrated PCs) was not in place until 1996. The fax machine (singular) was, I can assure you, shared between scores of offices, was on a different floor, was invariably behind locked door (due to there being no up to date security regs covering such technology, so just to be on the safe side………) and the resultant printouts were usually illegible anyway. Yes, a formal letter was the correct thing to do all round.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
I guess you win the prize and get to answer the 2 ultimate questions:
Bearing in mind that the AAIB was unable to find any fault that could have caused the crash:
Q1.
What exactly was the fault that caused the crash?
Bearing in mind that this tragedy has not been repeated in the 14 years 8 months and 10 days since the Mull Crash:
Q2.
What exactly was the Modification that cured the fault?
I guess you win the prize and get to answer the 2 ultimate questions:
Bearing in mind that the AAIB was unable to find any fault that could have caused the crash:
Q1.
What exactly was the fault that caused the crash?
Bearing in mind that this tragedy has not been repeated in the 14 years 8 months and 10 days since the Mull Crash:
Q2.
What exactly was the Modification that cured the fault?
Sorry Caz, that's been asked before and dealt with.
They are not questions that need answering in the context of this thread. But, as you asked, you're discussing component parts of the process I referred to - Maintaining the Build Standard.
Rather, the key questions are;
1. Why, in the Financial Years 1991/2 - 1993/4 did the RAF and PE senior management agree to cut the necessary funding, so compromising the mandated requirement to maintain the current build standard? (Noting that, in the same period, the Secretary of State actually introduced a higher and more expensive requirement which required safety cases to be underpinned by a maintained build standard).
2. Was this contradiction and the resultant increase in safety risk notified to these senior staffs? (Yes).
3. What did they do? (Slash funding even further).
4. Have subsequent accidents been traceable to these actions? (Yes).
And, going back to the correspondence discussed earlier - Did anyone in the addressees' management chain support all the above actions? YES!!!!!!
They are not questions that need answering in the context of this thread. But, as you asked, you're discussing component parts of the process I referred to - Maintaining the Build Standard.
Rather, the key questions are;
1. Why, in the Financial Years 1991/2 - 1993/4 did the RAF and PE senior management agree to cut the necessary funding, so compromising the mandated requirement to maintain the current build standard? (Noting that, in the same period, the Secretary of State actually introduced a higher and more expensive requirement which required safety cases to be underpinned by a maintained build standard).
2. Was this contradiction and the resultant increase in safety risk notified to these senior staffs? (Yes).
3. What did they do? (Slash funding even further).
4. Have subsequent accidents been traceable to these actions? (Yes).
And, going back to the correspondence discussed earlier - Did anyone in the addressees' management chain support all the above actions? YES!!!!!!
I guess you win the prize for repetition, cazatou, as this is your old chestnut. Time PPRuNe Pop for a new thread rule? No deviation, repetition etc etc?
1. I don't know what caused this accident. No one does, apart of course from Messrs W&D who are/were uniquely qualified to do so, IIRC from Newsnight!
2. You have been corrected on this before, please pay more attention! Lack of repeat accidents does not infer that an aircraft is/was airworthy. Airworthiness may be provided by modification, but not necessarily so.
3. My point about airworthiness is that it might or might not have been the cause of this accident. That the Airworthiness Authority (ie the MOD) should not be prepared to reverse the reviewing officers' findings of Gross Negligence when it was operating the type in contravention of its own airworthiness regulations at the time makes their position untenable IMHO. Of course I speak as an old BOF from a time when SoS's resigned because British territory was invaded on their watch! A far off time of which we now know little!
PS thanks for your wise words as ever, tucumseh, we crossed!
1. I don't know what caused this accident. No one does, apart of course from Messrs W&D who are/were uniquely qualified to do so, IIRC from Newsnight!
2. You have been corrected on this before, please pay more attention! Lack of repeat accidents does not infer that an aircraft is/was airworthy. Airworthiness may be provided by modification, but not necessarily so.
3. My point about airworthiness is that it might or might not have been the cause of this accident. That the Airworthiness Authority (ie the MOD) should not be prepared to reverse the reviewing officers' findings of Gross Negligence when it was operating the type in contravention of its own airworthiness regulations at the time makes their position untenable IMHO. Of course I speak as an old BOF from a time when SoS's resigned because British territory was invaded on their watch! A far off time of which we now know little!
PS thanks for your wise words as ever, tucumseh, we crossed!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
You said:
Easy question to answer: There may or may not have been one.......and the possibility that there may have been one is sufficient to cast doubt over the cause, convenient as it is to blame the pilots.
Alternatively, try answering this question:
What exactly was the fault that caused the US Army Chinook to roll in the opposite direction to that intended, resulting in the pilots of that aircraft having to roll through 180 degrees before regaining level flight 850 ft below the starting altitude? I'll even give you a clue: although the aircraft was landed intact, no mechanical fault was ever found (apart from the pilots' report that full rudder was needed during the manoeuvre).
You said:
What exactly was the fault that caused the crash?
Alternatively, try answering this question:
What exactly was the fault that caused the US Army Chinook to roll in the opposite direction to that intended, resulting in the pilots of that aircraft having to roll through 180 degrees before regaining level flight 850 ft below the starting altitude? I'll even give you a clue: although the aircraft was landed intact, no mechanical fault was ever found (apart from the pilots' report that full rudder was needed during the manoeuvre).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point on the Chinook that rolled..!!
(Possible link, i dont know ??)
I saw recently on Sky the episode of the 737 crash which resulted in the loss of the aircraft and crew. Believed to be caused by wake vortex from a 727 in front. There was a previous crash, that was still unexplained up to this point.
However, a third 737, had a simliar problem. The crew managed to bring the aircraft under control and land safely.
It appears that the rudder made undemanded control inputs.
One theory was the "fat passenger" theory. (No offence to anyone !! )
The idea being that if someone was heavy enough, could they actually cause a sufficient dent in the aircraft floor to cause the controls lines to operate the rudder. This was dispelled.
The fault was eventually traced to a fault in the PCU. (Primary Control Unit ? )
This was "freezing" at a certain point and in effect caused the crew to try to operate the rudder in the wrong direction, thereby increasing the yaw angle further the wrong way and putting themselves in a situation that was unrecoverable !!
Not being from an engineering background, could this be a link ?
I would expect the systems on fixed wing and rotary to be different, however, 737 and Chinook both Boeing !!
(Possible link, i dont know ??)
I saw recently on Sky the episode of the 737 crash which resulted in the loss of the aircraft and crew. Believed to be caused by wake vortex from a 727 in front. There was a previous crash, that was still unexplained up to this point.
However, a third 737, had a simliar problem. The crew managed to bring the aircraft under control and land safely.
It appears that the rudder made undemanded control inputs.
One theory was the "fat passenger" theory. (No offence to anyone !! )
The idea being that if someone was heavy enough, could they actually cause a sufficient dent in the aircraft floor to cause the controls lines to operate the rudder. This was dispelled.
The fault was eventually traced to a fault in the PCU. (Primary Control Unit ? )
This was "freezing" at a certain point and in effect caused the crew to try to operate the rudder in the wrong direction, thereby increasing the yaw angle further the wrong way and putting themselves in a situation that was unrecoverable !!
Not being from an engineering background, could this be a link ?
I would expect the systems on fixed wing and rotary to be different, however, 737 and Chinook both Boeing !!
Interesting comparative case LL, particularly as I flew the 737 3/400 at the time. The difference of course is that once the shadow of suspicion fell on the type, rather than human or environmental causes, intense investigation was initiated to determine the defective component and its rectification whilst revising recommended crew drills to deal with such excursions. Here the Airworthiness Authority is content with simply confirming W&D's findings; that the "Grossly Negligent" pilots were solely to blame. God forbid that the same pattern of accidents should yet occur as in your example. I endorse meadowbank's point that though we don't know the cause of this accident, there is a damn sight more circumstantial evidence stacked up against the aircraft type's airworthiness than there is against the pilots. The lack of crash evidence is as inconclusive as the lack of later accidents. Having said that, this thread is not the place to speculate as to what technical malfunctions might have caused this accident, for it remains just that, speculation. What is the job of this thread, AFAIK, is to continue to fight for W&D's findings to be quashed. There are two reasons why this is imperative. The first is to put right a gross injustice. The second is far more important, to acknowledge that this type, in common with many other UK Military Aircraft types, lacked airworthiness. That is the elephant in the room that must be addressed before UK Military Airworthiness can begin to be regained.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise if this seems inappropriate and will immediately delete if it causes any offence.
Having read an article in the Independent today I thought it rather ironic, when you consider what this thread is arguing and given all the evidence available to the AAIB with regards to Colin McRae's accident, that the outcome of their report failed to find any conclusive evidence as to why the helicopter crashed.
Colin McRae Helicopter Crash: Rally Champion Driver Lacked Valid Flying Licence At Time Of Smash | UK News | Sky News
I know it's thread drift and will pull it straight away if asked, small delay as we are off for a curry shortly, but I could not help feel extremely sad as i sat in the Sgt's mess at lunchtime pondering the whole sorry state of affairs
Having read an article in the Independent today I thought it rather ironic, when you consider what this thread is arguing and given all the evidence available to the AAIB with regards to Colin McRae's accident, that the outcome of their report failed to find any conclusive evidence as to why the helicopter crashed.
Colin McRae Helicopter Crash: Rally Champion Driver Lacked Valid Flying Licence At Time Of Smash | UK News | Sky News
I know it's thread drift and will pull it straight away if asked, small delay as we are off for a curry shortly, but I could not help feel extremely sad as i sat in the Sgt's mess at lunchtime pondering the whole sorry state of affairs
Seldom - I trust your curry is going down well.
Please don't pull your post - I think you make an excellent point. What an amazing contrast between the verdict on Colin McRae and the verdict on which we have all been focussed for so long.
There seems to be plenty of circumstantial evidence against Colin McRae - but nonetheless there is nothing conclusive, and hence the AAIB is unable to identify a precise cause.
Case not proven, in the Scottish legal phrase.
In the Mull of Kintyre case, there is significantly less circumstantial evidence, and yet the pilots have been found indubitably guilty.
I rest my case, m'lord.
airsound
Please don't pull your post - I think you make an excellent point. What an amazing contrast between the verdict on Colin McRae and the verdict on which we have all been focussed for so long.
There seems to be plenty of circumstantial evidence against Colin McRae - but nonetheless there is nothing conclusive, and hence the AAIB is unable to identify a precise cause.
Case not proven, in the Scottish legal phrase.
In the Mull of Kintyre case, there is significantly less circumstantial evidence, and yet the pilots have been found indubitably guilty.
I rest my case, m'lord.
airsound
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug 2..
Thank you for your reply..
I'm on the crews side here to just argue against the findings...!!
Unless the is no shadow of a doubt to the contrary, then they should be deemed blameless !!
As in other posts, i served 3yrs on JHSU and had every confidence in the Chinook crews who routinley "balanced" the a/c on my head whilst i hooked up an underslung load.
My point being that the 737 incidents just went to prove there was some mechanical error that resulted in the loss of 2 a/c plus crew & passengers, before a 3rd a/c survived a similar incident. Also how bout the findings from the Chinook accident nearer to base, when on a simulated 1 engine out scenario, the a/c suffered a real failure and crashed !!
Possible link ??
The facts n figures of known problems with the updated version caused concern for all. Yet no-one seems to listen until its all too late. Then the deal seems to be to blame the Crew for the error..as they say, "dead men tell no lies" (no offence intended !!)
Had any of the crew survived then i'm sure the findings would be significanlty different.
As for Colin McCrae's crash..
well, if he flew that helo knowing full well he wasn't licensed, then surely that would be the same as me pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger...tantamount to murder !!
Its easy for the Poliice to stop us on the road when they do a registration check and theefore eliminate banned/unqualified drivers...the same cannot be said in the aviation if someone has a PPL and has there own a/c... as the McRae case proves, he jumped in, took off and yet no-one knew his licence had expired until it was too late.
Thank you for your reply..
I'm on the crews side here to just argue against the findings...!!
Unless the is no shadow of a doubt to the contrary, then they should be deemed blameless !!
As in other posts, i served 3yrs on JHSU and had every confidence in the Chinook crews who routinley "balanced" the a/c on my head whilst i hooked up an underslung load.
My point being that the 737 incidents just went to prove there was some mechanical error that resulted in the loss of 2 a/c plus crew & passengers, before a 3rd a/c survived a similar incident. Also how bout the findings from the Chinook accident nearer to base, when on a simulated 1 engine out scenario, the a/c suffered a real failure and crashed !!
Possible link ??
The facts n figures of known problems with the updated version caused concern for all. Yet no-one seems to listen until its all too late. Then the deal seems to be to blame the Crew for the error..as they say, "dead men tell no lies" (no offence intended !!)
Had any of the crew survived then i'm sure the findings would be significanlty different.
As for Colin McCrae's crash..
well, if he flew that helo knowing full well he wasn't licensed, then surely that would be the same as me pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger...tantamount to murder !!
Its easy for the Poliice to stop us on the road when they do a registration check and theefore eliminate banned/unqualified drivers...the same cannot be said in the aviation if someone has a PPL and has there own a/c... as the McRae case proves, he jumped in, took off and yet no-one knew his licence had expired until it was too late.
LL, there may well be possible links between this and other Chinook accidents or incidents. I don't know, nor I suspect does anyone else, including their Airships. As I have already said, such conjecture doesn't get us anywhere. Forensic science might yet retrospectively determine the cause, but I suspect that the aircraft remains were speedily disposed of. If the aircraft had been fitted with recorders of aircraft parameters and flight deck voices then we might have had a much better idea but the Airworthiness Authority deemed them unnecessary. As it seems content to pin the blame on the "Gross Negligence" of the pilots in the absence of contrary proof one might be tempted to conclude that they had an incentive to perpetuate such technical deprivation. What is emerging on PPRuNe is the culpability of that same Airworthiness Authority, in that this aircraft along with many others lacked airworthiness. Again, the obvious conflict of interest of the Operator and the Airworthiness Authority being one and the same, ie the MOD, strikes me as so unacceptable that these two functions must be separated by the establishment of an independent Military Airworthiness Authority before UK military airworthiness can be regained.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having an out of date licence does not make one immediately incapable. It would seem that the McCrea accident was a case of flying in conditions beyond one's ability. The problem with the Chinook accident was that the aircraft hit a mountain at high speed for no apparent reason. It was in controlled flight at the time of impact, there is no evidence of any mechanical malfunction. So, once again the question is, what were they doing at that position, at that speed and in those conditions? The aircraft was not inverted, no 'rudder' valves had stuck, the engines were working with no fadec problems and there were no little green men present. They shouldn't have been there.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of an indate licence i agree to a point does not make 1 incapable..
However, I hold a Bronze C glider pilot licence.. i'll just strap in and launch !!
I'm licenced, no problem, however, i aint flown for sometime, therefore i know that i will need a check flight to ensure not only my safety, but that of fellow aviators and those on the ground.
In my book, there was gross negligence on the part of Mcrae, he would have known full well he was out of date.. if not then he shouldn't hold a licence in the first place. Basic requiremnt of PPL i was taught, ensure you are up to date.
Would you share the same view of an unlicenced driver wiping out your family during a shopping trip ??
I think not somehow...!!
No licence, dont drive ...!!
No licence, dont fly...!!
However, I hold a Bronze C glider pilot licence.. i'll just strap in and launch !!
I'm licenced, no problem, however, i aint flown for sometime, therefore i know that i will need a check flight to ensure not only my safety, but that of fellow aviators and those on the ground.
In my book, there was gross negligence on the part of Mcrae, he would have known full well he was out of date.. if not then he shouldn't hold a licence in the first place. Basic requiremnt of PPL i was taught, ensure you are up to date.
Would you share the same view of an unlicenced driver wiping out your family during a shopping trip ??
I think not somehow...!!
No licence, dont drive ...!!
No licence, dont fly...!!
Courtney:
The problem with the Chinook accident is people like Wratten, Day and you! You three and others like you are willing to hang the label of manslaughter around the necks of two deceased pilots with no real evidence. Other than that I have no problem with your quote above. Everything else that followed it is pure rhetoric, conjecture or plain facile. Of course they shouldn't have been wiped out on the side of a hill, duh! I hope that you have never sat on a Court Martial or done Jury Service, guilty unless able to prove their innocence eh?
The problem with the Chinook accident was that the aircraft hit a mountain at high speed for no apparent reason.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the sun
Age: 52
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2. You can count a 4th to that...me!
The result of the Chinook flying below SAlt was CFIT. Considering the high value of the SLF the captain should have flown the aircraft at a safe level and if unable to do so should not have descended to low level but turned around instead. Low level increases the risk and should be flown at such levels only if operationally or for essential training. The labelling of manslaughter is harsh because of the ramifications it has for the families of the crew but acceptable to those of the pax.
The result of the Chinook flying below SAlt was CFIT. Considering the high value of the SLF the captain should have flown the aircraft at a safe level and if unable to do so should not have descended to low level but turned around instead. Low level increases the risk and should be flown at such levels only if operationally or for essential training. The labelling of manslaughter is harsh because of the ramifications it has for the families of the crew but acceptable to those of the pax.
Crazymonkey, just as with courtney you make assumptions, ie that this was Controlled Flight into Terrain. How can you be so sure? Evidence has been given on this thread of another Chinook, that had mystifyingly gone out of control, thankfully control was regained, only to result in no technical clues as to what had happened. I'm not saying that is what happened here, I just don't know! With respect how can you? As to the flight profile chosen for this flight I leave it to others better qualified than I in SH operation. In my book all SLF are high value, as I'm sure they were in the minds of these pilots. They may well have made errors, but this finding in the absence of proof positive was unjust.You speak I assume as one of the families. If so you have my deepest sympathy. I cannot imagine though that such loss can be lightened by an added injustice. Given that the aircraft was not fit for purpose, in that it lacked airworthiness, responsibility for the "SLF" being placed in it lay much further up the food chain than its pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy Monkey:
You may wish to reconsider your facts - if you care to visit the campaign website you will find the names of a considerable number of the relatives of the deceased passengers amongst the 1100+ people who signed our petition against the verdict.
The labelling of manslaughter is harsh because of the ramifications it has for the families of the crew but acceptable to those of the pax.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy Monkey
You said:
With respect, what on Earth does the 'value' of the SLF have to do with this? Or even that passengers were present at all? I, as the pilot, am concerned about getting my fragile body from A to B in one piece. The presence of 25 passengers (however valuable) has no bearing on how I conduct the flight.
You also say that the pilot........
......but the intention was always to conduct the entire flight at low level and the aircraft never climbed above a few hundred feet.
Courtney
You say that the aircraft......
......but this is not an established fact. Indeed, the AAIB-calculated aircraft attitude at impact would be relatively extreme for an aircraft flying IMC and I would tend towards it, therefore, NOT being in control at the time of impact.
You go on to ask......
....to which the answer can only be "Nobody will ever know". It is false logic to infer that an aircraft that hits the ground in cloud is under control (CFIT).
You state that the aircraft wasn't inverted. This appears to be true for the moment of impact, but, like the US Army Chinook that I mentioned in an earlier post, ZD576 may have been inverted and out-of-control prior to the impact. The point of this whole campaign is that we'll never know, there is no evidence to prove the pilots' negligence "beyond any doubt whatsoever" and a finding of Gross Negligence is wholly unsafe.
If a CVR recording existed that contained dialogue along the lines of:
Pilot A: Looks like the cloud's on the surface ahead.
Pilot B: Nah, it's fine, let's just punch straight through it.
....we would have evidence of negligence, but we don't and they should not have been found guilty of misjudgement, let alone Gross Negligence.
Finally, you state......
......but we don't know that there were no FADEC problems and (with tongue not completely in cheek) we don't even know that no little green men were present! With respect, like AM Wratten, you are confusing your opinion with fact.
You said:
Considering the high value of the SLF
You also say that the pilot........
should not have descended to low level
Courtney
You say that the aircraft......
was in controlled flight at the time of impact
You go on to ask......
the question is, what were they doing at that position, at that speed and in those conditions?
You state that the aircraft wasn't inverted. This appears to be true for the moment of impact, but, like the US Army Chinook that I mentioned in an earlier post, ZD576 may have been inverted and out-of-control prior to the impact. The point of this whole campaign is that we'll never know, there is no evidence to prove the pilots' negligence "beyond any doubt whatsoever" and a finding of Gross Negligence is wholly unsafe.
If a CVR recording existed that contained dialogue along the lines of:
Pilot A: Looks like the cloud's on the surface ahead.
Pilot B: Nah, it's fine, let's just punch straight through it.
....we would have evidence of negligence, but we don't and they should not have been found guilty of misjudgement, let alone Gross Negligence.
Finally, you state......
the engines were working with no fadec problems and there were no little green men present
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CrazyMonkey
My husband was killed on board that flight and I don't for one minute support your claim that a charge of manslaughter is acceptable. I don't know what happened, no-one does and, as has been explained on this thread countless times, therefore the pilots cannot be proven negligent, or anything else for that matter.
My husband was killed on board that flight and I don't for one minute support your claim that a charge of manslaughter is acceptable. I don't know what happened, no-one does and, as has been explained on this thread countless times, therefore the pilots cannot be proven negligent, or anything else for that matter.
Pen333, thank you for your post. I am sure that it is as painful as ever it was to revisit this tragedy, and if justice had been done originally this thread and your feeling the need to post here would not be necessary. No one may speak on your behalf without your agreement, I would not dream of it, but your input is vital in giving moral authority to this fight to clear the names of these two pilots. From evidence on this thread and others that has now become conjoined with another fight to highlight the airworthiness shortcomings in the fleet that this aircraft was a part of as well as in other fleets. That is an essential preliminary to a reform of the whole system of UK Military Airworthiness provision, a system that has been deliberately suborned by the MOD for short term monetary savings. The long term effect will almost certainly be more accidents with more bereaved families such as yours unless urgent and effective reform is initiated. I hope you can support that fight too.
CrazyMonkey, will you please make your position clear? Your post said:
The implication from that is that you speak as one of, or on behalf of, the bereaved families. May I ask if you do?
CrazyMonkey, will you please make your position clear? Your post said:
The labelling of manslaughter is harsh because of the ramifications it has for the families of the crew but acceptable to those of the pax.