Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PD
You see the sad fact is that you have been wearing blinkers and have refused - at least publicly - to recognise that the HoL findings were conducted by emminent legal's. They FOUND doubt without too much effort. Why didn't the MoD? Well, to be more correct they couldn't find cause. If that ain't doubt I don't know what is.
[quote]One should realise that, if the MOD is forced to overturn its verdict on this case, that no armed forces aircrew is ever going to be able to be labled 'negligent' ever again in relation to any future aviation accident. <hr></blockquote>
That's very good isn't it? It means that no other unfair decision can be made by two Air Marshals who refused to accept that doubt existed. They, and they alone, were judge, jury and executioner. Something they were not suited for and in the end have found to be seriously lacking.
Personally, I think that negligence is a very serious charge and it HAS to be very carefully considered. Indeed, where negligence is a possible option, I am of the view that a courts martial, or a BoI, must be conducted by a dominance of the judiciary, and, as in this sad case, NEVER NEVER by two senior officers who have no idea of assessing what is blatantly obvious and is beating them around the head. Their pig-headedness in this will live in the RAF for many many years. I am sure that it will be a subject that is raised at Staff College in years to come as a marker for future senior air officers.
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: InFinRetirement ]</p>
You see the sad fact is that you have been wearing blinkers and have refused - at least publicly - to recognise that the HoL findings were conducted by emminent legal's. They FOUND doubt without too much effort. Why didn't the MoD? Well, to be more correct they couldn't find cause. If that ain't doubt I don't know what is.
[quote]One should realise that, if the MOD is forced to overturn its verdict on this case, that no armed forces aircrew is ever going to be able to be labled 'negligent' ever again in relation to any future aviation accident. <hr></blockquote>
That's very good isn't it? It means that no other unfair decision can be made by two Air Marshals who refused to accept that doubt existed. They, and they alone, were judge, jury and executioner. Something they were not suited for and in the end have found to be seriously lacking.
Personally, I think that negligence is a very serious charge and it HAS to be very carefully considered. Indeed, where negligence is a possible option, I am of the view that a courts martial, or a BoI, must be conducted by a dominance of the judiciary, and, as in this sad case, NEVER NEVER by two senior officers who have no idea of assessing what is blatantly obvious and is beating them around the head. Their pig-headedness in this will live in the RAF for many many years. I am sure that it will be a subject that is raised at Staff College in years to come as a marker for future senior air officers.
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: InFinRetirement ]</p>
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: IMC
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also received a reply from my MP, Sir Michael Lord, deputy speaker, today.
He, like many others, doubts that the cause of the crash will ever be established and that the findings of gross negligence cannot be made.
As a deputy speaker he is unable to raise this matter in the House of Commons, but he will send a copy of my letter to the Shadow Defence Secretary, Bernard Jenkin, asking for his comments.
More to follow "wait out"?
He, like many others, doubts that the cause of the crash will ever be established and that the findings of gross negligence cannot be made.
As a deputy speaker he is unable to raise this matter in the House of Commons, but he will send a copy of my letter to the Shadow Defence Secretary, Bernard Jenkin, asking for his comments.
More to follow "wait out"?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is Ingram's comments in the defence debate yesterday - the issue was raised by MPs, but unfortunately not all were on side. James Arbuthnot's speech was excellent.
INGRAM
The debate has been wide ranging and we have touched on a lot of subjects. I cannot take up every one, but let me deal with the Chinook issue. I am doubtful as to whether it touches on defence policy, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the outcome it could affect morale. I understand the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's feeling, but I am sure that, as an ex-Minister, he knows that it would be inappropriate to respond from the Dispatch Box to a detailed and rigorous report that requires intensive scrutiny by the Department. That is being undertaken. Useful contributions have been made, but I ask all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred. We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance.
Full debate at:
<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm</a>
INGRAM
The debate has been wide ranging and we have touched on a lot of subjects. I cannot take up every one, but let me deal with the Chinook issue. I am doubtful as to whether it touches on defence policy, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that the outcome it could affect morale. I understand the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's feeling, but I am sure that, as an ex-Minister, he knows that it would be inappropriate to respond from the Dispatch Box to a detailed and rigorous report that requires intensive scrutiny by the Department. That is being undertaken. Useful contributions have been made, but I ask all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred. We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance.
Full debate at:
<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020214/debindx/20214-x.htm</a>
I agree that Mr Arbuthnot’s speech was excellent and shows a good understanding of the main issues.
The strongest negative speech from John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) had some interesting bits I thought:
“First, I hope that an aircraft that has not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down will never be allowed to perform such an important mission again. It was a fundamental mistake, and I am astonished that an aircraft with so many operational limitations was allowed to fly on the mission.” . .and:
“If the eminent officers had to fly to Fort George, it would have been more appropriate and sensible for them to travel to Inverness airport in a Hercules or BAe 146. It is incomprehensible that they all flew in one aircraft, especially one that had so many limitations, in such unsuitable weather. Clearly, the weather was marginal for flight under visual flight rules.”
. .“The senior officers who permitted the sortie to go ahead in the helicopter, in the weather conditions that I outlined, are reprehensible”.
The MoD must love having him on their side.
The strongest negative speech from John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) had some interesting bits I thought:
“First, I hope that an aircraft that has not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down will never be allowed to perform such an important mission again. It was a fundamental mistake, and I am astonished that an aircraft with so many operational limitations was allowed to fly on the mission.” . .and:
“If the eminent officers had to fly to Fort George, it would have been more appropriate and sensible for them to travel to Inverness airport in a Hercules or BAe 146. It is incomprehensible that they all flew in one aircraft, especially one that had so many limitations, in such unsuitable weather. Clearly, the weather was marginal for flight under visual flight rules.”
. .“The senior officers who permitted the sortie to go ahead in the helicopter, in the weather conditions that I outlined, are reprehensible”.
The MoD must love having him on their side.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance."
How does he/the MoD propose to do that?
Maybe they propose to hold a seance.
OBM
"We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day. They have to be weighed in the balance."
How does he/the MoD propose to do that?
Maybe they propose to hold a seance.
OBM
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, shame that came from Wilko, as he knows what he is talking about (ex RAF flying instructor).
But perhaps someone can write to him to tell him he is missing the point.
On a separate matter the EDM now has 55 signatures so far...not bad out of 659 MPs.
But perhaps someone can write to him to tell him he is missing the point.
On a separate matter the EDM now has 55 signatures so far...not bad out of 659 MPs.
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 P,. .the MoD has given themselves a six month breathing space but have said that they hope to reply much sooner.
I suppose it depends on how long it will take for Messrs Hoon and Ingram to write their presentations for the Lords Select Committee, because that is who they will have to appear before if the MoD continues with it's farcical stance.
Come on Mr Hoon. The longer you remain silent, the more foolish the MoD appear. This delay can only damage the reputation of a fine Service.
Perhaps readers could e-mail him to ask when a reply will be forthcoming. I know I have!
[email protected]
We must not let this issue drop now. Please keep the pressure on.
Thanks and regards as always.. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I suppose it depends on how long it will take for Messrs Hoon and Ingram to write their presentations for the Lords Select Committee, because that is who they will have to appear before if the MoD continues with it's farcical stance.
Come on Mr Hoon. The longer you remain silent, the more foolish the MoD appear. This delay can only damage the reputation of a fine Service.
Perhaps readers could e-mail him to ask when a reply will be forthcoming. I know I have!
[email protected]
We must not let this issue drop now. Please keep the pressure on.
Thanks and regards as always.. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Just a subliminal message to remind everyone that the MoD are hoping we will now go away.
We must not do this. Let us ensure that the unlawful verdict is expunged from the record of Rick and Jon.
If you have not already done so, please consider contacting your MP to get them to sign the EDM and to ask them to write to the PM to demand he overturns the finding in their record.
Use Geoffrey Hoon's e-mail address in my posting above if you don't have an MP.
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
We must not do this. Let us ensure that the unlawful verdict is expunged from the record of Rick and Jon.
If you have not already done so, please consider contacting your MP to get them to sign the EDM and to ask them to write to the PM to demand he overturns the finding in their record.
Use Geoffrey Hoon's e-mail address in my posting above if you don't have an MP.
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've sent off a copy of Malcolm Rifkind’s letter to my MP (as he put it much more eloquently than what I can), and added the following for good measure:
“In a nutshell then, the original RAF Board of Enquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch, a Scottish sheriff, the Commons Public Accounts Committee and a Lords Select Committee have studied the available evidence, and all of them decided it was impossible to determine the cause of the crash.
By contrast, two Air Marshalls have decided that gross negligence has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, backed up by a Ministry of Defence that has a clear interest in diverting attention away from awkward questions about why the “cream of British military intelligence” was allowed to fly en-masse in a helicopter that had known and serious control system defects - and onto two dead pilots.
Given the above, could you imagine any circumstances whatsoever where the Air Marshalls and the MoD will admit what is staring them in the face - that their verdict was wrong? If not, would you agree that the MoD is displaying arrogance bordering on contempt of parliament, and that if they are not prepared to act of their own volition, they should be forced to do so by the Prime Minister himself?
I would also ask that you lend your support to early day motion no. 829.”
The more people asking awkward questions, the better.
“In a nutshell then, the original RAF Board of Enquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch, a Scottish sheriff, the Commons Public Accounts Committee and a Lords Select Committee have studied the available evidence, and all of them decided it was impossible to determine the cause of the crash.
By contrast, two Air Marshalls have decided that gross negligence has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, backed up by a Ministry of Defence that has a clear interest in diverting attention away from awkward questions about why the “cream of British military intelligence” was allowed to fly en-masse in a helicopter that had known and serious control system defects - and onto two dead pilots.
Given the above, could you imagine any circumstances whatsoever where the Air Marshalls and the MoD will admit what is staring them in the face - that their verdict was wrong? If not, would you agree that the MoD is displaying arrogance bordering on contempt of parliament, and that if they are not prepared to act of their own volition, they should be forced to do so by the Prime Minister himself?
I would also ask that you lend your support to early day motion no. 829.”
The more people asking awkward questions, the better.
Wrote to two MP's, mine and the one next door as it were. The one next door, Annette Brookes, has signed the EDM and sent me a press release from Menzies Campbell supporting the motion.
My MP (Con) has not responded at all yet. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
My MP (Con) has not responded at all yet. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Just a numbered other
Reply from No 10.
Funy old thing, they've passed my letter to MoD, as usual!
Can anyone confirm that Buffhoon's email address is geof, with only one 'f'?
Funy old thing, they've passed my letter to MoD, as usual!
Can anyone confirm that Buffhoon's email address is geof, with only one 'f'?
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
Yep, only one 'f'. There's ample opportunity to make a comment after that, but I'll resist!
No 10 have said today that they are still looking at the Report. Why is it taking so long to read such a short document?
Let's make sure that we all encourage them to read a little faster!
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
No 10 have said today that they are still looking at the Report. Why is it taking so long to read such a short document?
Let's make sure that we all encourage them to read a little faster!
Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EDM is up to 61. I fear it has peaked. However, 61 is a respectable total.
Now we need to get an on-side MP to stand up in business questions on Thursday and say to little Red Robin Cook "given the extent of feeling, draw his attention to EDM, 61 signatures yadda yadda yadda, morale RAF etc, we need a debate on this".
This is quite legit...if they refuse they will be seen to be avoiding the question....
Volunteers?? It is worth a crack if only to get it mentioned in the HoC again.
Now we need to get an on-side MP to stand up in business questions on Thursday and say to little Red Robin Cook "given the extent of feeling, draw his attention to EDM, 61 signatures yadda yadda yadda, morale RAF etc, we need a debate on this".
This is quite legit...if they refuse they will be seen to be avoiding the question....
Volunteers?? It is worth a crack if only to get it mentioned in the HoC again.
If it is debated in the Commons not all MP's will argue strongly against the MoD. One in particular we know is John Wilkinson, MP for Ruislip & Northwood, who argued for the MoD in the recent Defence debate.. I have recently received a letter from him in which he states his view:
".. the crew in attempting to continue the sortie VFR in bad weather did not have enough margin to allow for any navigational error, deterioration of weather or technical malfunction, especially as they could not climb above safety altitude to go IFR because the Chinook Mk 2 was not cleared for flight higher than the 4 deg isotherm.
It is my belief that they ought to have aborted the flight or diverted away from high ground. It is for this reason that I support the Air Marshalls' findings. However bad the briefing and however inappropriate the mission....captains of aircraft are in the last analysis responsible for the safety of their aeroplane regardless of the VIP status of their passengers... (unfortunately I cannot read his writing after that bit)"
I have asked him at what point they should have aborted, based on known facts. If anyone cares to take up the battle to change his mind before any further debate it would be a great help to the cause. As he is an experienced ex RAF pilot so is potentially a powerful voice.
Edited by pulse1 because it didn't make sense!
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: pulse1 ]</p>
".. the crew in attempting to continue the sortie VFR in bad weather did not have enough margin to allow for any navigational error, deterioration of weather or technical malfunction, especially as they could not climb above safety altitude to go IFR because the Chinook Mk 2 was not cleared for flight higher than the 4 deg isotherm.
It is my belief that they ought to have aborted the flight or diverted away from high ground. It is for this reason that I support the Air Marshalls' findings. However bad the briefing and however inappropriate the mission....captains of aircraft are in the last analysis responsible for the safety of their aeroplane regardless of the VIP status of their passengers... (unfortunately I cannot read his writing after that bit)"
I have asked him at what point they should have aborted, based on known facts. If anyone cares to take up the battle to change his mind before any further debate it would be a great help to the cause. As he is an experienced ex RAF pilot so is potentially a powerful voice.
Edited by pulse1 because it didn't make sense!
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: pulse1 ]</p>