Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
Can we put the handbags away and allow things to cool a little in this rather cyclical argument?
I think Cows has put it rather aptly:
Personally, I think that both hypotheses could be correct but because of the element of doubt in either view, the findings of the senior ROs were totally inappropriate. Its that simple, really.
Sadly, there will be some who are too blinkered to see that.
Whether or not the ac crashed because of some unknown failure or because of crew error, it is becoming apparent that the military airworthiness system has been allowed to falter - the HC 2 is but one example.
No matter what your view on Mull, surely anyone remotely interested in Flight safety would agree that sorting this mess out, must be an immediate priority to prevent recurrence?
Can we put the handbags away and allow things to cool a little in this rather cyclical argument?
I think Cows has put it rather aptly:
So we have two lines of thought that both offer doubt; one doubting the professionalism of the crew, the other doubting the airworthiness of the aircraft. Either way, each argument brings doubt to the other hypothesis
Sadly, there will be some who are too blinkered to see that.
Whether or not the ac crashed because of some unknown failure or because of crew error, it is becoming apparent that the military airworthiness system has been allowed to falter - the HC 2 is but one example.
No matter what your view on Mull, surely anyone remotely interested in Flight safety would agree that sorting this mess out, must be an immediate priority to prevent recurrence?
Tuc. I do not see how insults can advance matters; the fact is that down here in the West we do not have to hand the documents that you quote. But since, as I recall, it was you who started this airworthyness hare running, will you now be kind enough to quote the definitions for us; failing that, a few unkind folk might think you are merely laying smoke. With all good wishes, JP
I'm afraid it it is you who insults the memory of all those lost on ZD576. But thank you anyway for confirming my thoughts.
Now, any thoughts on RWTS' letter? Surely you know that RWTS routinely comprises some of the very best aircrew; anywhere. Every project manager knows that the contents of any such letter is, for all practical purposes, the end-user speaking. Their concerns came to be shared by the deceased pilots.
Pray tell, what drove otherwise sensible people to completely reject these concerns? Were the authors interviewed by the BoI or any other inquiry? I've told you my opinion. The political imperative.
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
Bast0n,
my apologies, I misunderstood your point. Thank you for your kind words. I do try to be as reasoned, and polite as I can (although accept that I have fallen short of that on a few occasions).
Caz,
are you aware that the CAS described the BoI as being "barely adequate"? I wonder whether his concerns were raised with either the BoI President or the reviewing Officers, and why there was no request for a more thorough job?
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
my apologies, I misunderstood your point. Thank you for your kind words. I do try to be as reasoned, and polite as I can (although accept that I have fallen short of that on a few occasions).
Caz,
are you aware that the CAS described the BoI as being "barely adequate"? I wonder whether his concerns were raised with either the BoI President or the reviewing Officers, and why there was no request for a more thorough job?
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
I would be very grateful if you did not put words into my posts. It serves no purpose but to obfuscate my points.
I think that JP and CAZ have some relevant well argued points that so many of you - out of some form of blind logic/loyalty/have it what you will, (and I admire some of those sentiments), prefer to ignore. I do not think on the evidence presented that this is as complicated as some of you would like to think.
It would be nice also that after the last 15 years of wondering and discussion, that we who remain, and remember so well that awful stomach churning moment when we heard the news should try to remain civil to those whose views we may not agree with.
I would be very grateful if you did not put words into my posts. It serves no purpose but to obfuscate my points.
I think that JP and CAZ have some relevant well argued points that so many of you - out of some form of blind logic/loyalty/have it what you will, (and I admire some of those sentiments), prefer to ignore. I do not think on the evidence presented that this is as complicated as some of you would like to think.
It would be nice also that after the last 15 years of wondering and discussion, that we who remain, and remember so well that awful stomach churning moment when we heard the news should try to remain civil to those whose views we may not agree with.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston
I also believe that JP and Caz have some well argued and relevant points, I am even on record on here as saying that I suspect what JP thinks happened is probably correct.
The difference is that JP and Caz in their seemingly blind and slavish devotion to Messers Wratten and Day have never once, and I suspect never will concede that others on here have well argued and relevant points as well, as to do so casts serious doubts on this unjust verdict and they can't have that can they.
I also believe that JP and Caz have some well argued and relevant points, I am even on record on here as saying that I suspect what JP thinks happened is probably correct.
The difference is that JP and Caz in their seemingly blind and slavish devotion to Messers Wratten and Day have never once, and I suspect never will concede that others on here have well argued and relevant points as well, as to do so casts serious doubts on this unjust verdict and they can't have that can they.
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
Shytorque
Quote:
What a stupid, broad brush statement.
and a very well thought out reply.........................!
Still wandering in hyperspace I see.
Quote:
What a stupid, broad brush statement.
and a very well thought out reply.........................!
Still wandering in hyperspace I see.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shytorque
I have read his post and very good it is too. Most of his are. Are you going to aspire to greater things in yours?
Yup - still wandering in hyperspace, but in a very nice wandery way
Brian Dixon often has more patience than myself, read his post above yours. I stand by my statement.
Yup - still wandering in hyperspace, but in a very nice wandery way
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston,
Not sure if it's my imagination here but you are avoiding more and more posts, like our good friend JP, as each day goes by, are you guys related by any chance?
Not sure if it's my imagination here but you are avoiding more and more posts, like our good friend JP, as each day goes by, are you guys related by any chance?
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 5th Jun 2009 at 08:22.
Brian Dixon said;
Brian has raised this before, but good points are worth repeating.
The MoD’s Safety Management Systems (in fact any SMS) requires that ”Knowledgeable people should investigate the incident (sic) and determine the causes, both immediate and underlying”.
Examples of “underlying” causes are given, such as safety culture, how work is controlled, co-ordinated & supervised, adequacy of safety planning & risk assessment, how competency is achieved & tested and adequacy of safety review & audits.
The simple reason why MoD doesn’t “go there” is because it fails every count, except perhaps the last (as numerous audits, safety and otherwise, have highlighted the failings I speak of). If you recall, the Chinook 2 Star in MoD(PE) dismissed one as “Of no concern to PE”.
Which brings us to the next paragraph in the book – “There should be follow-up…..”. As far as I can see, MoD’s follow-up resources are expended making sure there is no follow-up.
It would seem this higher, over-riding requirement is not reflected in what BoI’s or (especially, in this case) ROs do in practice. I have a feeling Mr Haddon-Cave’s report is going to dwell at length on the fact the regulations are not implemented, which we all know anyway.
are you aware that the CAS described the BoI as being "barely adequate"? I wonder whether his concerns were raised with either the BoI President or the reviewing Officers, and why there was no request for a more thorough job?
Brian has raised this before, but good points are worth repeating.
The MoD’s Safety Management Systems (in fact any SMS) requires that ”Knowledgeable people should investigate the incident (sic) and determine the causes, both immediate and underlying”.
Examples of “underlying” causes are given, such as safety culture, how work is controlled, co-ordinated & supervised, adequacy of safety planning & risk assessment, how competency is achieved & tested and adequacy of safety review & audits.
The simple reason why MoD doesn’t “go there” is because it fails every count, except perhaps the last (as numerous audits, safety and otherwise, have highlighted the failings I speak of). If you recall, the Chinook 2 Star in MoD(PE) dismissed one as “Of no concern to PE”.
Which brings us to the next paragraph in the book – “There should be follow-up…..”. As far as I can see, MoD’s follow-up resources are expended making sure there is no follow-up.
It would seem this higher, over-riding requirement is not reflected in what BoI’s or (especially, in this case) ROs do in practice. I have a feeling Mr Haddon-Cave’s report is going to dwell at length on the fact the regulations are not implemented, which we all know anyway.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom old bean - if you tell me what questions/posts I have avoided I will put it right straight away. Or pop in any old question and I will do my best to answer it.
Always willing to be of courteous service.
Always willing to be of courteous service.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about last nights entry (ies). It / they were made after too long a visit to Ye Horns Inn.
Cazatou in 4688 again draws our attention to the fact that the Reviewing Officers decision taken after receiving evidence under oath. He has also stated earlier he is not fully aware of all the evidence given by Sqn Ldr Burke to the HOL.
The impartial among you should now go back to 4675 by CHOCKS WAHAY, click on "this link", and read in toto.
The evidence of Sqn Ldr Burke is illuminating. Please note that the HOL appear to accept his evidence in toto.
Now read on to the evidence of the AM's. In para 135 the HOL reject five key "facts" in the AM's evidence. "In fact", Sir John himself, "under oath", accepts that one of his "key facts", the lack of selection of emergency power is not a "fact" at all.
Read para 108. The HOL comment on the submission of Gp Capt Pullford's, explaining the reasons for the exclusion of Sqn Ldr Burke from from the original BOI. They found his reasoning "unconvincing".
Cazatou in 4688 again draws our attention to the fact that the Reviewing Officers decision taken after receiving evidence under oath. He has also stated earlier he is not fully aware of all the evidence given by Sqn Ldr Burke to the HOL.
The impartial among you should now go back to 4675 by CHOCKS WAHAY, click on "this link", and read in toto.
The evidence of Sqn Ldr Burke is illuminating. Please note that the HOL appear to accept his evidence in toto.
Now read on to the evidence of the AM's. In para 135 the HOL reject five key "facts" in the AM's evidence. "In fact", Sir John himself, "under oath", accepts that one of his "key facts", the lack of selection of emergency power is not a "fact" at all.
Read para 108. The HOL comment on the submission of Gp Capt Pullford's, explaining the reasons for the exclusion of Sqn Ldr Burke from from the original BOI. They found his reasoning "unconvincing".
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
4697
I have not read their posts in the same light as you and so do not see your view above in such a black and white fashion. I am sure, and they have said so, that much of what is written here is relevant and well argued - if not as relevant a some would like to believe.
4700
Am I related???? I don't know!!! Perhaps an unexpected legacy will be winging its way to me in the distant future. I do hope so.
Avoiding posts? I don't think so. Go ahead and point out the relevant ones and again I will do my best to ease your worries as to my worth on this thread.
4697
The difference is that JP and Caz in their seemingly blind and slavish devotion to Messers Wratten and Day have never once, and I suspect never will concede that others on here have well argued and relevant points as well, as to do so casts serious doubts on this unjust verdict and they can't have that can they.
4700
Am I related???? I don't know!!! Perhaps an unexpected legacy will be winging its way to me in the distant future. I do hope so.
Avoiding posts? I don't think so. Go ahead and point out the relevant ones and again I will do my best to ease your worries as to my worth on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn
I am afraid you have more patience than I do. SFFP's wish to force me to continually reply to often inane comments based on the posts of "someone he admires" led me to give him pride of place on my "ignore" list.
I am afraid you have more patience than I do. SFFP's wish to force me to continually reply to often inane comments based on the posts of "someone he admires" led me to give him pride of place on my "ignore" list.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
4697
I have not read their posts in the same light as you and so do not see your view above in such a black and white fashion. I am sure, and they have said so, that much of what is written here is relevant and well argued - if not as relevant a some would like to believe.
4697
I have not read their posts in the same light as you and so do not see your view above in such a black and white fashion. I am sure, and they have said so, that much of what is written here is relevant and well argued - if not as relevant a some would like to believe.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
This is not meant to be a debating competition. More a civilised exchange of views.
Caz - I am not yet at the end of my patience!! Just calmly trying to put across a point of view - not always successfully! Keep it up mate.
I guess we must see things rather differently as I have yet to see either of them acknowledge anything as highlighted above, which smacks of rather closed minds me thinks.
Caz - I am not yet at the end of my patience!! Just calmly trying to put across a point of view - not always successfully! Keep it up mate.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston,
Try sending me a rather silly PM with all sort of made up facts and figures with regards to your previous service, direct quotes from your letter from the brass on leaving and a whole host of other bluff and bluster and I guarantee my response will have you, as it did for the man from provence, reaching for the ignore button
Try sending me a rather silly PM with all sort of made up facts and figures with regards to your previous service, direct quotes from your letter from the brass on leaving and a whole host of other bluff and bluster and I guarantee my response will have you, as it did for the man from provence, reaching for the ignore button
bastOn:
Personally I think something more than either of the above is called for from participants to this thread. It is a sticky for a very good reason, its importance. What is at stake here is vital to the memory of two deceased officers, to the future of the Royal Air Force, and perhaps most importantly of all, to preventing future avoidable accidents. It is not sufficient for people to simply try to score points (and I must plead guilty to that at times, for which I am sorry), nor to sit on the fence, nor to cherry pick from this side and then that. For the most part the table has been piled high with the offerings of both those who endorse the MOD and RAF's position that the RO's findings are persuasive and correct and those like me who denounce them as incredible. It is make your mind up time, indeed has been for the last 15 years. If the outside world of Coroners, QC's, Lords and MP's comes to a final conclusion while we, the "skilled Aviators" and professional "Odds and Sods" (very much the latter group in my case) are still counting the VFR and IFR fairies inhabiting pin heads it will be a verdict on us, not them. In my view there are some very nasty nettles to be grasped here by the Military Aviation community. The very foundations upon which our profession rests are being called into question. Do we face up to that or rather stuff our fingers in our ears and "La, la, la" loudly until it all goes away? I doubt very much that it will now.
This is not meant to be a debating competition. More a civilised exchange of views.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
Now why would I want to do that? "My response will have you" - Your childishness rules you out of this debate.
PS - Who is the man from Provence?
I think the time has come to let you know that you are not funny, not clever and nobody liked you at school
Chugalug - you make some very good points. The wider problems of the MOD and those who failed in their duty of care and so on and so on are very well put and I hope that they will be embarrassed into improving their performance - but don't hold your breath.
The other side of this is why did two pilots fly into a rock - and that is the morbidly fascinating problem that I wrestle with over and over again. It has happened before and will happen again. The last few minutes of flight hold the key to the accident to my mind.
Keep chugging on
Try sending me a rather silly PM with all sort of made up facts and figures with regards to your previous service, direct quotes from your letter from the brass on leaving and a whole host of other bluff and bluster and I guarantee my response will have you, as it did for the man from provence, reaching for the ignore button
PS - Who is the man from Provence?
I think the time has come to let you know that you are not funny, not clever and nobody liked you at school
Chugalug - you make some very good points. The wider problems of the MOD and those who failed in their duty of care and so on and so on are very well put and I hope that they will be embarrassed into improving their performance - but don't hold your breath.
The other side of this is why did two pilots fly into a rock - and that is the morbidly fascinating problem that I wrestle with over and over again. It has happened before and will happen again. The last few minutes of flight hold the key to the accident to my mind.
Keep chugging on
Last edited by bast0n; 5th Jun 2009 at 13:24.