Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the intention was always to conduct the entire flight at low level and the aircraft never climbed above a few hundred feet
Indeed, the AAIB-calculated aircraft attitude at impact would be relatively extreme for an aircraft flying IMC
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spheroid
I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would read a little more about this accident before making inane comments!
It is possible you have some experience of helo ops.
As do many of the people who post in defence of the two pilots involved.
Do you think we are all just 'nuts' or 'simpletons'??
Please contribute in a more 'informed' way. Thank you.
I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would read a little more about this accident before making inane comments!
It is possible you have some experience of helo ops.
As do many of the people who post in defence of the two pilots involved.
Do you think we are all just 'nuts' or 'simpletons'??
Please contribute in a more 'informed' way. Thank you.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you guys just don't get it. This is not about whether the pilots were IMC/VMC etc. It is about the rules for BOIs which, at the time, said pilots could only be found grossly negligent if there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to the cause of the accident. As the MOD have not/cannot satisfy that burden of proof, the 'verdict' of gross negligence remains flawed. Rick and John did not and should not need to prove anything.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you guys just don't get it. This is not about whether the pilots were IMC/VMC etc. It is about the rules for BOIs which, at the time, said pilots could only be found grossly negligent if there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to the cause of the accident. As the MOD have not/cannot satisfy that burden of proof, the 'verdict' of gross negligence remains flawed. Rick and John did not and should not need to prove anything
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Spheroid,
Assuming that you meant to write "they" displayed poor captaincy; can you explain that statement? How do you know it?
Assuming that you meant to write "they" displayed poor captaincy; can you explain that statement? How do you know it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurking 123
I'm afraid you got that wrong. A finding of gross negligence following an accident is not dependant on the cause of the accident.
If you indulge in an unauthorised low level beat up of your girlfriends house and suffer an uncontained engine failure which results in abandonment of the aircraft then you would be found negligent to a gross degree because your unauthorised actions resulted in a situation where no action on your part could prevent the loss of the aircraft. The same failure whilst complying with your authorisation would not result in such a finding.
The senior reviewing officers of the Chinook BOI concluded that the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima.
I'm afraid you got that wrong. A finding of gross negligence following an accident is not dependant on the cause of the accident.
If you indulge in an unauthorised low level beat up of your girlfriends house and suffer an uncontained engine failure which results in abandonment of the aircraft then you would be found negligent to a gross degree because your unauthorised actions resulted in a situation where no action on your part could prevent the loss of the aircraft. The same failure whilst complying with your authorisation would not result in such a finding.
The senior reviewing officers of the Chinook BOI concluded that the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima.
While accusations of gross negligence against the pilots are mere unfounded opinion, this cannot be said of those who knowingly and quite deliberately permitted the airworthiness of the aircraft to erode in the preceding years. It is a pity there doesn't seem to be any mechanism whereby their actions are recognised, except promotion and fat pensions.
Worse, nothing has changed and still we see Boards of Inquiry citing failure to implement these mandated regulations. Nimrod, Tornado, Sea King............... Their actions were, and remain, without any doubt whatsoever, a breach of Duty of Care amounting to Gross Negligence.
Worse, nothing has changed and still we see Boards of Inquiry citing failure to implement these mandated regulations. Nimrod, Tornado, Sea King............... Their actions were, and remain, without any doubt whatsoever, a breach of Duty of Care amounting to Gross Negligence.
cazatou:
And therein lies the dilemma, Caz. Since W&D's findings it has emerged, though presumably all ready known to them, that this aircraft and its sister ones were fundamentally unairworthy. These were experienced SF qualified SH pilots. No explanation has been given, other than by Walter, as to why they should go charging off into granite centred IMC rather than continuing as per their authorisation. AFAIK nobody's girlfriend lived on Mull, so bang goes that theory! I don't have a theory. I only know that I find W&D's theory incredible and thus their consequent findings unjust. We may yet discover what led these pilots to the action that they took. If so it is very likely to appear to have been an act of desperation rather than of gross negligence.
failure whilst complying with your authorisation would not result in such a finding.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
So why did the cover-up start as soon as the BOI convened?
Just one example:
This thread has had contributions from people professing to be "the other crew" explaining how Messrs Tapper & Cook stated that fateful evening that they (as the SF crew) would fly the Inverness task because of the poor weather and the inexperience on the Chinook of the RN Pilot of the other crew that had been scheduled to do that task.
If that is true then how is it that the BOI, following interviews conducted under oath with detatchment personnel (including the other crew), stated in their report that Tapper & Cook flew that sortie because "Detatchment crews preferred to operate on a day on /day off rota"?
So why did the cover-up start as soon as the BOI convened?
Just one example:
This thread has had contributions from people professing to be "the other crew" explaining how Messrs Tapper & Cook stated that fateful evening that they (as the SF crew) would fly the Inverness task because of the poor weather and the inexperience on the Chinook of the RN Pilot of the other crew that had been scheduled to do that task.
If that is true then how is it that the BOI, following interviews conducted under oath with detatchment personnel (including the other crew), stated in their report that Tapper & Cook flew that sortie because "Detatchment crews preferred to operate on a day on /day off rota"?
Caz
You may, but I based my statement on verifiable facts, supported by much written evidence, internal MoD audit reports, external reports (e.g. HCDC, PAC), Coroners' verdicts, personal experience and last, but by no means least, a raft of open source Ministerial correspondence. In my opinion, a far more compelling body of evidence than any offered against the pilots.
tucumseh
May I point out that the first sentence in your last post is merely "unfounded opinion".
May I point out that the first sentence in your last post is merely "unfounded opinion".
Cazatou:
It is more appropriate for that question to be put to Messrs Wratten, Day and the MOD rather than myself, Caz. I don't know the answer to your question. I'm convinced that they do. In the real world of course they are not going to volunteer such information, so somehow they must be compelled. Any suggestions?
So why did the cover-up start as soon as the BOI convened?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug. Kennedy's was not the only explanation; I had suggested here many times that the crew were not where they thought they were. Had they been on their intended track, they would have cleared the hills ahead of them (as they no doubt expected to do), but a quarter of a mile off that track the hills were around 300ft higher.
But the important fact is, as CAZ pointed ou in his quote: ".......the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima". Those circumstances are the facts of the matter.
We really must not go round exactly the same bouys as before, but can anyone offer an alternative and credible explanation? Regards JP
But the important fact is, as CAZ pointed ou in his quote: ".......the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima". Those circumstances are the facts of the matter.
We really must not go round exactly the same bouys as before, but can anyone offer an alternative and credible explanation? Regards JP
Last edited by John Purdey; 5th Mar 2009 at 14:28.
John Purdey:
Well you have the advantage on me then because the circumstances of this accident seem to be woefully short of facts IMHO. At one time I'll concede your interpretation was beguiling. A perfectly serviceable and safe aircraft is gratuitously driven in IMC into the side of a hill by two pilots. “Clear case of CFIT, clear case of pilot error, damn it clear case of Gross Negligence”. It never was clear of course, but a convenient finding in the absence of anything more compelling. Now slowly, tortuously, obscurely, that “anything” turns out to be the common denominator as in so many UK military aircraft accidents of late. The aircraft lacked airworthiness, principally because the Regulatory Authority responsible for enforcing the Airworthiness Regulations didn’t, indeed didn’t for some twenty years as a matter of deliberate policy enforced at 4* level downwards on the very people charged with that mandated duty. I do not say that this accident was directly caused by the compromised airworthiness of the aircraft, because I do not know. We do know of at least one hair raising excursion of a Chinook from controlled flight that miraculously landed safely, but if anything similar to that happened here we do not know. To say that we do know without any doubt whatsoever that the pilots were solely responsible for this tragedy seems bizarre and frankly incredible. Given that Messrs W&D would have known full well the airworthiness problems brewing in every UK military air fleet, both then and now, a cynic might find an easy explanation for their arbitrary and extreme findings.
Those circumstances are the facts of the matter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bath
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence from the yachtsman was that the aircraft was being flown fast and low towards the Mull. The waypoint change is a fact and if they were not in control of the aircraft then, the change should not have been made. The change was made when they were facing a known rock and in the prevailing weather (go watch the video from the tourists taken only minutes earlier and the evidence of the lighthouse keeper who could see barely yards) the only options that they should have taken were detailed by Day.
The pilots failed to take the actions that they should have done and at the waypoint change they were already negligent.
It might pay to read the MOD statement with an open mind.
There will be no change from the MOD or Ministers, now or in the future.
The pilots failed to take the actions that they should have done and at the waypoint change they were already negligent.
It might pay to read the MOD statement with an open mind.
There will be no change from the MOD or Ministers, now or in the future.
Here we go again, round and round we go.
Atlantic C it might help us avoid this if you found some earlier, similar comments on this thread and read the following arguments "with an open mind".
Atlantic C it might help us avoid this if you found some earlier, similar comments on this thread and read the following arguments "with an open mind".
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse,
Sorry I've read more on this than most people . And I've written more reasoned responses than most.
AC
But as who?
Sorry I've read more on this than most people . And I've written more reasoned responses than most.
AC
But as who?
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 5th Mar 2009 at 18:59.