Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Staffordshire, (UK).
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only that...any computer simulation will always be subject to the conditions/triggers/parameters of the people doing the programming. Boeing!
Do we really think that Boeing would willingly produce a simulation that would prove thier own "products" are faulty, and caused the deaths of so many?
The ONLY way, such a simulation could possibly "work", that is, to prove, or shed light on the events of that day, is to have 1000's of pilots actually flying the simulation, and cross reference the results. Which...again, "no doubt what so ever", is just an impossibilty from a computer model. Also...is is not a Boeing computer system, (super TANS), that is, in all likley hood to have caused the crash in the first place?
We still sending our letters and e mails? Hope so...
Take care all....
Do we really think that Boeing would willingly produce a simulation that would prove thier own "products" are faulty, and caused the deaths of so many?
The ONLY way, such a simulation could possibly "work", that is, to prove, or shed light on the events of that day, is to have 1000's of pilots actually flying the simulation, and cross reference the results. Which...again, "no doubt what so ever", is just an impossibilty from a computer model. Also...is is not a Boeing computer system, (super TANS), that is, in all likley hood to have caused the crash in the first place?
We still sending our letters and e mails? Hope so...
Take care all....
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Lots of emotion, lots of heat but not much light that I can see in this long running discussion. Can someone explain why they think it was a good idea that the crew were flying at low level, towards high ground, at high speed in IMC conditions, having filedd a VFR flight plan? I only ask because I want to know.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
I don’t think any one has claimed that would be the case. However if you are attempting to figure out the merit of the MOD’s case then prove, beyond any doubt, that they were IMC and you have a point. If you’re unable to do so then you’ll have answered your’ own question.
Easy really.
I don’t think any one has claimed that would be the case. However if you are attempting to figure out the merit of the MOD’s case then prove, beyond any doubt, that they were IMC and you have a point. If you’re unable to do so then you’ll have answered your’ own question.
Easy really.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kent. England.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As my 'profile' suggests, i have absolutely 'nil' knowledge of flying, per-se... However 'justice' as a concept, 'transcends' the limitations of [my] 'knowledge'...Through 'Justice', a window for the 'Layperson', to 'engage' in the debate is 'oppertuned'.
A subject touched upon by Mr Dixon (19/06/02), was the doctrine of 'The Rule of Law'...A fundamental doctrine of the (unwritten) Constitution of the U.K.
Searching Through 'Cases and Materials on Constitutional & Administrative Law', as a student of Law/Criminology/etc, the following struck me as....pertinant, re the Rule Of Law.
"The Rule of Law is preferable to the rule of any individual"- Aristotle.
"A man may be 'punished' for a breach of the Law...and nothing else".- A.V. Dicey.
"Actions not authorised by law, cannot be the actions of government, (as a government).".- J Raz.
Also 'Laws' should be relatively stable, "they should not be changed too often....'Negligence' !
The independance of the Judiciary, must be guaranteed, 'They' are charged with, (direct quote). "with the duty of applying the law to cases brought before them and whose judgments and conclusions as to the legal merits of those cases are FINAL".
I sincerely hope i have not de-valued/distracted the debate on obtaining justice, but i feel as a non flyer i wish to contribute. I leave with a quote from an eminent theorist of 'the primacy of knowledge'... "Depending on 'social interaction', the 'truth' has..a surplus of meaning, and therfore on that basis, an instability of meaning".
Mitzi.
A subject touched upon by Mr Dixon (19/06/02), was the doctrine of 'The Rule of Law'...A fundamental doctrine of the (unwritten) Constitution of the U.K.
Searching Through 'Cases and Materials on Constitutional & Administrative Law', as a student of Law/Criminology/etc, the following struck me as....pertinant, re the Rule Of Law.
"The Rule of Law is preferable to the rule of any individual"- Aristotle.
"A man may be 'punished' for a breach of the Law...and nothing else".- A.V. Dicey.
"Actions not authorised by law, cannot be the actions of government, (as a government).".- J Raz.
Also 'Laws' should be relatively stable, "they should not be changed too often....'Negligence' !
The independance of the Judiciary, must be guaranteed, 'They' are charged with, (direct quote). "with the duty of applying the law to cases brought before them and whose judgments and conclusions as to the legal merits of those cases are FINAL".
I sincerely hope i have not de-valued/distracted the debate on obtaining justice, but i feel as a non flyer i wish to contribute. I leave with a quote from an eminent theorist of 'the primacy of knowledge'... "Depending on 'social interaction', the 'truth' has..a surplus of meaning, and therfore on that basis, an instability of meaning".
Mitzi.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Been away but had this reply from Adam Ingram waiting for me when I got back:
. . . . . usual intro lines, refers to EDM 829, etc, then, para 3:
"You are no doubt aware that we responded to the Select Committee Report on 22 July and that Statements were made in both Houses.
"All the complex technical and legal issues, including airmanship issues raised in the Report have been examined fully, as has the further work commissioned from Boeing. The only expalnation that fits all the known and agreed facts is the conclusion reached by the Board of Inquiry: that the pilots flew the aircraft at high speed, low, in contravention of "visual flight rules", into the Mull. The Ministry of Defence, therefore, remains unable to support the conclusions of the latest report into this tragic accident/
"Copies of the . . . . full response in Library of House . . . . etc and on Internet : http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
signed Adam Ingram
Help me - was the above 'the conclusion reached by the Board'?
and when was the 'further work' done by Boeing? Before or after the House of Lords Report? Indeed, were these the 'known and agreed facts'?
I'd like to respond strongly to AI, hence the request.
. . . . . usual intro lines, refers to EDM 829, etc, then, para 3:
"You are no doubt aware that we responded to the Select Committee Report on 22 July and that Statements were made in both Houses.
"All the complex technical and legal issues, including airmanship issues raised in the Report have been examined fully, as has the further work commissioned from Boeing. The only expalnation that fits all the known and agreed facts is the conclusion reached by the Board of Inquiry: that the pilots flew the aircraft at high speed, low, in contravention of "visual flight rules", into the Mull. The Ministry of Defence, therefore, remains unable to support the conclusions of the latest report into this tragic accident/
"Copies of the . . . . full response in Library of House . . . . etc and on Internet : http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
signed Adam Ingram
Help me - was the above 'the conclusion reached by the Board'?
and when was the 'further work' done by Boeing? Before or after the House of Lords Report? Indeed, were these the 'known and agreed facts'?
I'd like to respond strongly to AI, hence the request.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Hi Brian Dixon, Oh I see, and others. Someone asked how we might be sure that the Chinook crew were flying in IMC. Well, all the witnesses at the Mull, imcluding the lighthouse keeper (and he should know), said that the visibility up there was 20 yards at the most. Is that IMC or not? By the way, have you read their Lordship's definition of negligence at para 147 of their Report? I only ask these questions because I want to know. Regards.
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 Mr Purdey,
You should have said ".. all the witnesses on the Mull... said visability was 20 yards". I might have agreed with you.
However, what was the visibility looking towards the Mull? I don't know either. Mr Holbrook (heard of him?), gave the best account, but appears to have been ingnored by the MoD because his evidence doesn't appear to support their best guess. That evidence is also well documented in their Lordships report.
I have, indeed, read their Lordships definition and much, much more. I am still of the firm belief that the MoD's verdict is unlawful.
Although this reply is my own personal opinion I hope it answers your questions.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
You should have said ".. all the witnesses on the Mull... said visability was 20 yards". I might have agreed with you.
However, what was the visibility looking towards the Mull? I don't know either. Mr Holbrook (heard of him?), gave the best account, but appears to have been ingnored by the MoD because his evidence doesn't appear to support their best guess. That evidence is also well documented in their Lordships report.
I have, indeed, read their Lordships definition and much, much more. I am still of the firm belief that the MoD's verdict is unlawful.
Although this reply is my own personal opinion I hope it answers your questions.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Box
As an Ex North Sea Helicopter Pilot I have 2 questions! Firstly, what were 2 experienced doing so low at night in fog so close to the mainland?
Secondly, why in peacetime do your transport fleets not carry a Flight Data Recorder? If a Puma can carry one so could a Chinook -and it would have answered so many questions!
I attach no blame BTW.
Secondly, why in peacetime do your transport fleets not carry a Flight Data Recorder? If a Puma can carry one so could a Chinook -and it would have answered so many questions!
I attach no blame BTW.
John Purdey,
The question you raised is a very important one because the logic upon which it is based is the same logic which the MoD and the Government are using to create the impression that there is no doubt that the Chinook was flying in IMC before it hit the ground. They use the same witnesses to support their argument because most members of the public and, more worrying, MP's with no technical knowledge will be taken in by this.
Of course, when it hit the ground, there is no doubt that it was in IMC. There is equally no doubt that, 2 minutes before the accident, it was in VMC (Mr Holbrook's evidence).
The mystery has always been - why did it go into IMC when the pilots must have known the proximity of the high ground (way point changed)? I have seen no evidence which tells me what the cloud conditions were on the route they were obviously planning to take i.e direct from change of way point to the that waypoint.
Mr Purdey, your profile gives no clue as to your own technical knowledge so, if the many pundits on this thread will forgive me, I will try to make it clear. I do this also in the hope that other people who read this bulletin might see through the false arguments of the MoD. (I have heard several people, with no detailed knowledge of the accident, be taken in by this argument)
As a VFR pilot, if I am below 3000' and clear of cloud and can see the ground, then I am in VMC. The fact that there might be a thick, large cloud within 1000 metres of my position does not change that.
The only other relevant factor is the speed, which the MoD claims was too high. Based on Mr Holbrook's evidence there is considerable doubt about that.
If you read the earlier arguments given by the MoD, you will see that they originally tried to con us into believing that they should have climbed to minimum safe altitude well before the Mull. Thanks to many experienced SHF pilots on this bulletin, it was made clear that there was no legal and safe way they could do this because of the icing limitations placed on this aircraft.
Now it appears that their argument is based on the conclusion that there is no evidence for any other conclusion than they were negligent. So we appear to have a new concept in law - absence of evidence that you didn't do it actually proves that you you did
The question you raised is a very important one because the logic upon which it is based is the same logic which the MoD and the Government are using to create the impression that there is no doubt that the Chinook was flying in IMC before it hit the ground. They use the same witnesses to support their argument because most members of the public and, more worrying, MP's with no technical knowledge will be taken in by this.
Of course, when it hit the ground, there is no doubt that it was in IMC. There is equally no doubt that, 2 minutes before the accident, it was in VMC (Mr Holbrook's evidence).
The mystery has always been - why did it go into IMC when the pilots must have known the proximity of the high ground (way point changed)? I have seen no evidence which tells me what the cloud conditions were on the route they were obviously planning to take i.e direct from change of way point to the that waypoint.
Mr Purdey, your profile gives no clue as to your own technical knowledge so, if the many pundits on this thread will forgive me, I will try to make it clear. I do this also in the hope that other people who read this bulletin might see through the false arguments of the MoD. (I have heard several people, with no detailed knowledge of the accident, be taken in by this argument)
As a VFR pilot, if I am below 3000' and clear of cloud and can see the ground, then I am in VMC. The fact that there might be a thick, large cloud within 1000 metres of my position does not change that.
The only other relevant factor is the speed, which the MoD claims was too high. Based on Mr Holbrook's evidence there is considerable doubt about that.
If you read the earlier arguments given by the MoD, you will see that they originally tried to con us into believing that they should have climbed to minimum safe altitude well before the Mull. Thanks to many experienced SHF pilots on this bulletin, it was made clear that there was no legal and safe way they could do this because of the icing limitations placed on this aircraft.
Now it appears that their argument is based on the conclusion that there is no evidence for any other conclusion than they were negligent. So we appear to have a new concept in law - absence of evidence that you didn't do it actually proves that you you did
Last edited by pulse1; 25th Sep 2002 at 09:16.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Good morning Brian Dixon. Many thanks for the message. But if all the folk on the Mull were in cloud/fog, surely the crew could have seen those conditions as they approached? Every level in the BofI process agreed that the Mull was in cloud to an extent that made it impossible to overfly legally without being at Safety Altitude. So why did they press on? As I am sure you know, the aircraft was over 500 yards to starboard of its intended track. That meant that instead of confronting terrain that rose to around 300 feet they were heading for hills that went up to over 800. I am quite sure that this is what went wrong once they decided not to climb to Safety Altitude, but to enter a cruise climb to avoid the terrain at the lighthouse.
As to Mr Holbrook, you will note that his evidence changed markedly from the statement he gave at the Sheriff's Inquiry; not that it matters because an aircraft at 200-400 feetvwould have quite a different perspective from that in a yacht in gusty conditions.
As to para 147 of the HofL Report, it says that the question to be answered is "whether there is no doubt whatever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event". This is nonsense; it means that the crew were negligent only if they could forsee that they would crash! Best wishes. John Purdey
As to Mr Holbrook, you will note that his evidence changed markedly from the statement he gave at the Sheriff's Inquiry; not that it matters because an aircraft at 200-400 feetvwould have quite a different perspective from that in a yacht in gusty conditions.
As to para 147 of the HofL Report, it says that the question to be answered is "whether there is no doubt whatever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event". This is nonsense; it means that the crew were negligent only if they could forsee that they would crash! Best wishes. John Purdey
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Pulse 1. Very many thanks for your contribution. As a partial answer, please see my message today to Brian Dixon.
Can you now please say how the crew could have seen the high ground when, according to the lighthouse keeper, the visibility there was 20 metres or so. Please also say why on earth the crew did not turn away, climb to Safety Altitude or slow right down (I am assuming you discount the theory that the helicopter controls locked in all three axes, together with the power controls, just after the waypoint change, and then somehow freed themselves just before impact?).
My credentials are more than 4,000 hours as first pilot, over 1,000 of them as QFI on pistons and jets. May one ask what are yours (since you ask)? All good wishes, John Purdey.
Can you now please say how the crew could have seen the high ground when, according to the lighthouse keeper, the visibility there was 20 metres or so. Please also say why on earth the crew did not turn away, climb to Safety Altitude or slow right down (I am assuming you discount the theory that the helicopter controls locked in all three axes, together with the power controls, just after the waypoint change, and then somehow freed themselves just before impact?).
My credentials are more than 4,000 hours as first pilot, over 1,000 of them as QFI on pistons and jets. May one ask what are yours (since you ask)? All good wishes, John Purdey.
Hi JP,
In answer to your questions, all of which have been discussed frequently on this thread:
"How could the crew see the high ground?" I'm as sure as anyone can be that they could not see the high ground. It is possible, based on the yachtsman's evidence, that they could see the base of the high ground. It is reasonable to assume that they would have realised that the high ground was securely attached to it. I do not quite understand the relevance of your question as it is possible that the cloud conditions over their intended route were different. I do understand that the cloud over the Mull was orographic and it is quite possible that conditions over the sea would have been more favourable to VFR flight. I have seen no evidence on actual weather conditions over the sea.
"Why did they not turn away" As far as we know, they probably planned to, when they changed the way point. For all anyone knows, they may have actually done so.
"Why did they not climb away?" They could not climb to safety altitude without climbing above the icing limit for this aircraft.
"Why did they not slow down?" We do not know that they didn't. Mr Holbrook's evidence suggests that they did.
As far as locked controls is concerned I am in no way qualified to hold any theories. Others on this thread have discussed this possibility and, as far as I do understand, the possibility of some kind of control problem has been supported by one expert RAF witness who was told to keep quiet.
On a point of order, I did not ask for your flying credentials. I just said that I did not know what they were. I was aware that I might be teaching the proverbial grandmother, as indeed is the case. However, I was more concerned to use your question to expose the faulty logic which the MoD are using to win over the less informed opinion of MP's and the general public.
Essentially, it is because there are so many questions without answers, that any reasonable person should accept that there is some doubt.
In answer to your questions, all of which have been discussed frequently on this thread:
"How could the crew see the high ground?" I'm as sure as anyone can be that they could not see the high ground. It is possible, based on the yachtsman's evidence, that they could see the base of the high ground. It is reasonable to assume that they would have realised that the high ground was securely attached to it. I do not quite understand the relevance of your question as it is possible that the cloud conditions over their intended route were different. I do understand that the cloud over the Mull was orographic and it is quite possible that conditions over the sea would have been more favourable to VFR flight. I have seen no evidence on actual weather conditions over the sea.
"Why did they not turn away" As far as we know, they probably planned to, when they changed the way point. For all anyone knows, they may have actually done so.
"Why did they not climb away?" They could not climb to safety altitude without climbing above the icing limit for this aircraft.
"Why did they not slow down?" We do not know that they didn't. Mr Holbrook's evidence suggests that they did.
As far as locked controls is concerned I am in no way qualified to hold any theories. Others on this thread have discussed this possibility and, as far as I do understand, the possibility of some kind of control problem has been supported by one expert RAF witness who was told to keep quiet.
On a point of order, I did not ask for your flying credentials. I just said that I did not know what they were. I was aware that I might be teaching the proverbial grandmother, as indeed is the case. However, I was more concerned to use your question to expose the faulty logic which the MoD are using to win over the less informed opinion of MP's and the general public.
Essentially, it is because there are so many questions without answers, that any reasonable person should accept that there is some doubt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Pulse 1. Thanks for your further message. No, you did not ask for my technical qualifications, but you pointed out that you were not aware of them so I gave them. You have not, by the way, given yours - not that it matters a jot.
More important, you have not answered the points I made to Brian Cixon; Do you think the crew could see that the hilltops were in cloud or not? If they could, then why did they not climb to Safety Altitude, as their training and as the rules of good airmanship tell us that they should. And if the hills were clear of cloud/fog, how come the lighthouse keeper and several other folk were in a visibility of around 20 meters?
You have not dealt with the 500 yard error in flight track, and the consequent variation in terrain height ahead of the aircraft. I believe that to have been crucial; what do you think??
I am not trying to change your opinion; I am merely giving you mine! Regards. John Purdey.
More important, you have not answered the points I made to Brian Cixon; Do you think the crew could see that the hilltops were in cloud or not? If they could, then why did they not climb to Safety Altitude, as their training and as the rules of good airmanship tell us that they should. And if the hills were clear of cloud/fog, how come the lighthouse keeper and several other folk were in a visibility of around 20 meters?
You have not dealt with the 500 yard error in flight track, and the consequent variation in terrain height ahead of the aircraft. I believe that to have been crucial; what do you think??
I am not trying to change your opinion; I am merely giving you mine! Regards. John Purdey.
John,
I think that if you read my last post again you will surely see that I have answered your questions clearly.
However, once again:
No, I am sure that they could not see the top of the Mull of Kyntire. Their planned route, once they had changed the first waypoint did not take them over the hills so please tell me why you think that the visibility over the hills was that important.
I have explained why they could not climb to Safety Altitude. The limit for the Chinook MkII at that time was that they were not allowed to climb above the 4C isotherm which was, at about 2400', below the MSA which was 2800'.
I did not address the 500 yard error because I am not qualified to do so and do not have sufficient data to work out anything meaningful without it. I do understand that this is only a theoretical possibility based on a detailed understanding of the Supertans, and this itself leaves much room for doubt.
Please note that all anyone, even the most passionate supporter of the campaign, is saying is that sufficient doubt remains about any of the possible explanations to make the finding of negligence unsustainable.
As for my credentials, I am a trained and experienced scientist and, like many UK PPL's, I have spent many years groping around in marginal VMC in many parts of the UK. As such, I say that the experimental results obtained from all the data available make any kind of conclusion unsafe.
I think that if you read my last post again you will surely see that I have answered your questions clearly.
However, once again:
No, I am sure that they could not see the top of the Mull of Kyntire. Their planned route, once they had changed the first waypoint did not take them over the hills so please tell me why you think that the visibility over the hills was that important.
I have explained why they could not climb to Safety Altitude. The limit for the Chinook MkII at that time was that they were not allowed to climb above the 4C isotherm which was, at about 2400', below the MSA which was 2800'.
I did not address the 500 yard error because I am not qualified to do so and do not have sufficient data to work out anything meaningful without it. I do understand that this is only a theoretical possibility based on a detailed understanding of the Supertans, and this itself leaves much room for doubt.
Please note that all anyone, even the most passionate supporter of the campaign, is saying is that sufficient doubt remains about any of the possible explanations to make the finding of negligence unsustainable.
As for my credentials, I am a trained and experienced scientist and, like many UK PPL's, I have spent many years groping around in marginal VMC in many parts of the UK. As such, I say that the experimental results obtained from all the data available make any kind of conclusion unsafe.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey
This whole campaign revolves around the level of proof required to find gross negligence when there are no surviving aircrew. It should not be left to the defenders of the pilots to prove their case beyond doubt, that should be the task of the RAF and MoD.
I will reply to your questions to the best of my ability however I ask you to accept these possibilities as just that, a possible explanation as to the events leading up to the accident. The point being this is all that is required the cast doubt on the ultimate finding of the BoI and therefore make that finding untenable within the rules governing BoI at the time.
Could the crew see the hilltops? Given the evidence of those on the Mull at the time this would be highly unlikely.
If they could see the hilltops were in cloud why did they fail to climb to safety altitude? If they were clear of cloud and their intended routing was clear why should they climb to safety altitude?
If the hills were clear of cloud what of the witnesses’ reports on scene? As I said above the evidence of the witnesses on the Mull has to be taken as fact. However this does not prove that the crew were IMC until anything other than the last couple of seconds of flight. There are two sources of evidence that support the theory that the crew were visual with the coastline of the Mull. Firstly the evidence offered by the yachtsman and secondly the fact that the crew had selected the next waypoint to fly to on their navigational equipment. Not only had they selected the next waypoint but also had done so before over flight of the intended point which is a normal course of events when the point is acquired visually.
You have not dealt with the 500 yard error in flight track….? If the crew were VMC it would matter not a jot. More importantly are you suggesting that had they been IMC and the equipment bang on track 500 yards would have been an acceptable margin by which to pass the Mull below safety altitude or are you just assuming that the pilots were a couple of fools that would think this?
Once again I must say that I am not claiming to know what happened or that the crew were not guilty of some form of error however there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of gross negligence using the rules governing BoI at the time of the accident.
This whole campaign revolves around the level of proof required to find gross negligence when there are no surviving aircrew. It should not be left to the defenders of the pilots to prove their case beyond doubt, that should be the task of the RAF and MoD.
I will reply to your questions to the best of my ability however I ask you to accept these possibilities as just that, a possible explanation as to the events leading up to the accident. The point being this is all that is required the cast doubt on the ultimate finding of the BoI and therefore make that finding untenable within the rules governing BoI at the time.
Could the crew see the hilltops? Given the evidence of those on the Mull at the time this would be highly unlikely.
If they could see the hilltops were in cloud why did they fail to climb to safety altitude? If they were clear of cloud and their intended routing was clear why should they climb to safety altitude?
If the hills were clear of cloud what of the witnesses’ reports on scene? As I said above the evidence of the witnesses on the Mull has to be taken as fact. However this does not prove that the crew were IMC until anything other than the last couple of seconds of flight. There are two sources of evidence that support the theory that the crew were visual with the coastline of the Mull. Firstly the evidence offered by the yachtsman and secondly the fact that the crew had selected the next waypoint to fly to on their navigational equipment. Not only had they selected the next waypoint but also had done so before over flight of the intended point which is a normal course of events when the point is acquired visually.
You have not dealt with the 500 yard error in flight track….? If the crew were VMC it would matter not a jot. More importantly are you suggesting that had they been IMC and the equipment bang on track 500 yards would have been an acceptable margin by which to pass the Mull below safety altitude or are you just assuming that the pilots were a couple of fools that would think this?
Once again I must say that I am not claiming to know what happened or that the crew were not guilty of some form of error however there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of gross negligence using the rules governing BoI at the time of the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Pulse 1. Your statement that the planned route did not take them over the hills is not understood. If that was so, and assuming that they still had full control, why did they maintain heading straight into the high ground? I am of course assuming that you discount the notion that at waypoint change the controls somehow locked in all three axex together with the power controls, and that all these seizures then managed to clear themselves just before impact, leaving absolutely no witness marks.
Oh I See. They may well have been able to see the breakers on the coast, and to see that the high ground above the coast was in cloud. I believe they carried onbecause they were not on the track they thought they were on, but a quarter of a mile to starboard - see my contribution on 23rd at 10.43 to see what this meant in terms of terrain clearance (or not).
All the many theories sound fine, but only one of them fits all the known facts. I am sure it gives no pleasure to anyone, but the conclusions of the BofI do fit those facts. If anyone else has a theory that fits ALL the known facts, I am sure it would make an invaluable contribution to this debate.
Finally, I do not believe it gave any pleasure or satisfaction to the two air marshals concerned to have to reach the very painful conclusions they did about some of their own valued aircrew.
With all good wishes. John.
Oh I See. They may well have been able to see the breakers on the coast, and to see that the high ground above the coast was in cloud. I believe they carried onbecause they were not on the track they thought they were on, but a quarter of a mile to starboard - see my contribution on 23rd at 10.43 to see what this meant in terms of terrain clearance (or not).
All the many theories sound fine, but only one of them fits all the known facts. I am sure it gives no pleasure to anyone, but the conclusions of the BofI do fit those facts. If anyone else has a theory that fits ALL the known facts, I am sure it would make an invaluable contribution to this debate.
Finally, I do not believe it gave any pleasure or satisfaction to the two air marshals concerned to have to reach the very painful conclusions they did about some of their own valued aircrew.
With all good wishes. John.
John,
I have no relevant experience, so cannot comment upon your postings, beyond saying that, to a layman, you seem to put your case well. However, if you will permit me, from having observed this thread for some time, and having worked with and spoken to several denziens of ODI, I think it is fair to say that for many, the issue is the application of the verdict by the AMs.
You say that:
'All the many theories sound fine, but only one of them fits all the known facts'.
I'd contend that the word 'known' is the key here - We do not know all the facts pertaining to the tragedy. Doubt remains. It does not matter whether that doubt is substantial or wafer thin - it is indisputably there - and for a verdict of gross negligence to be returned, there must be no doubt at all - not a shred. The standard demanded is far higher than 'beyond reasonable doubt'; it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.
While their Lordships can be said not to have experience in flying and so on, their ability to interpret law and regualtions is not in question. They concluded that, by keeping in mind the requisite legal standards (which one would hope that the MoD aspires to...), one can show doubt exists - therefore, the AMs should not have returned the verdict.
Put another way - were regulations (mis)interpreted in a similar way against a living person, the verdict would be thrown out on appeal. Sadly, Rick and John do not have the right to appeal - hence the efforts of the campaigners ever since.
The pilots may well have made a mistake - but 'may' is not good enough. It has to be 'indisputably' and the fact that there is still dispute eight years after the tragedy says, to my mind at least, all we need to know.
Regards,
Archie
I have no relevant experience, so cannot comment upon your postings, beyond saying that, to a layman, you seem to put your case well. However, if you will permit me, from having observed this thread for some time, and having worked with and spoken to several denziens of ODI, I think it is fair to say that for many, the issue is the application of the verdict by the AMs.
You say that:
'All the many theories sound fine, but only one of them fits all the known facts'.
I'd contend that the word 'known' is the key here - We do not know all the facts pertaining to the tragedy. Doubt remains. It does not matter whether that doubt is substantial or wafer thin - it is indisputably there - and for a verdict of gross negligence to be returned, there must be no doubt at all - not a shred. The standard demanded is far higher than 'beyond reasonable doubt'; it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.
While their Lordships can be said not to have experience in flying and so on, their ability to interpret law and regualtions is not in question. They concluded that, by keeping in mind the requisite legal standards (which one would hope that the MoD aspires to...), one can show doubt exists - therefore, the AMs should not have returned the verdict.
Put another way - were regulations (mis)interpreted in a similar way against a living person, the verdict would be thrown out on appeal. Sadly, Rick and John do not have the right to appeal - hence the efforts of the campaigners ever since.
The pilots may well have made a mistake - but 'may' is not good enough. It has to be 'indisputably' and the fact that there is still dispute eight years after the tragedy says, to my mind at least, all we need to know.
Regards,
Archie
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lancashire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
One of the most persuasive witnesses before the Lords committee was Sqn Ldr Burke. He is a helicopter test pilot of vast experience. His interpretation of the "known facts" were considerably different to the two AM's. His evidence was probably the greatest single factor in the final decision by the Lords. Rather than try to use my laymans terms to explain his arguments, if you are really keen to examine his alternative thories, I suggest you dig out his evidence to the committee. It is freely available.
One of the most persuasive witnesses before the Lords committee was Sqn Ldr Burke. He is a helicopter test pilot of vast experience. His interpretation of the "known facts" were considerably different to the two AM's. His evidence was probably the greatest single factor in the final decision by the Lords. Rather than try to use my laymans terms to explain his arguments, if you are really keen to examine his alternative thories, I suggest you dig out his evidence to the committee. It is freely available.
John,
I think that Archie has eloquently hit the proverbial nail on the head. While I enjoy the good spirited debate with you about our various theories, that is what they are - theories which leave much room for doubt.
I believe that your theory does fit the few facts as well, if not better than many others, but it is still a theory, based on many assumptions and demands a high degree of incredulity to accept.
As Yetti has just pointed out, Sqn Ldr Burke's contribution, constrained as it was from above, makes other theories more credible for me and, it seems, many others. Still theories though.
I think that Archie has eloquently hit the proverbial nail on the head. While I enjoy the good spirited debate with you about our various theories, that is what they are - theories which leave much room for doubt.
I believe that your theory does fit the few facts as well, if not better than many others, but it is still a theory, based on many assumptions and demands a high degree of incredulity to accept.
As Yetti has just pointed out, Sqn Ldr Burke's contribution, constrained as it was from above, makes other theories more credible for me and, it seems, many others. Still theories though.
Just a numbered other
Mr Purdy, your use of the words 'assume', beleive', and 'theory' illustrate that you have yet to grasp the thrust of our argument.
Archimedes has very eloquently put our case.
Consider why the regulations required that gross negligence would need to be proven 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' where dead aircrew were implicated.
It was precisely to protect such unfortunates, with no defence counsell, and no recourse to appeal, from the 'assumptions', 'beliefs' and 'theories' of others.
Put another way, in the absence of absolute, positive and incontrovertible proof that a certain chain of events and actions actually caused an accident, no finding of Gross Negligence could be arrived at. The benefit of the smallest doubt rests with the pilots, and makes the finding plain wrong. This is the point made by their lordships.
We could theorise until doomsday over what did cause the accident, but we will never know 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what did. It is, anyway, irrelevant to this campaign.
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Archimedes has very eloquently put our case.
Consider why the regulations required that gross negligence would need to be proven 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' where dead aircrew were implicated.
It was precisely to protect such unfortunates, with no defence counsell, and no recourse to appeal, from the 'assumptions', 'beliefs' and 'theories' of others.
Put another way, in the absence of absolute, positive and incontrovertible proof that a certain chain of events and actions actually caused an accident, no finding of Gross Negligence could be arrived at. The benefit of the smallest doubt rests with the pilots, and makes the finding plain wrong. This is the point made by their lordships.
We could theorise until doomsday over what did cause the accident, but we will never know 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what did. It is, anyway, irrelevant to this campaign.
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.