Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
A heavy duty indeed, caz. But there is the crux of the matter, for those seeking the purpose of this thread are thereby stating categorically that he failed totally in that duty. I count myself amongst those who have come regretfully to that conclusion. You will not believe me I am sure, but it is with true regret that I say that, for it has implications not only for Sir John but for the Royal Air Force as well. You are not the only one who cares, caz.
bast0n (4):
" Would you support the accident investigation being reopened (under whatever guise that the RAF could manage given caz's list of obstructions) to have that very evidence and those very witnesses presented? "
bast0n (4):
" Would you support the accident investigation being reopened (under whatever guise that the RAF could manage given caz's list of obstructions) to have that very evidence and those very witnesses presented? "
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DALEK
Unnecessary and not necessarily true. Experience is only relevant if one learns from, and applies experience. We all know amazingly experienced pilots with whom we would be unhappy to fly with as they do not apply that experience to the day to day business of staying alive. Some Boscombe TPs of old come into that category in my experience!!
Would I be happy to have the accident investigation reopened to allow more evidence to be presented - of course - but we must be careful not to go down the slippery path demonstrated by WW1 where people were judged by their compatriots by the rules and mores of the time to have this re-examined by the present day "experts" under the rules pertaining today.
If we go down that route we could end up with a can of worms and have the directly opposite result to that to which you aspire.
DNA evidence backtracking old criminal cases and producing totally unexpected results is a case in point.
Let's press for a reinvestigation by all means, and and by whatever means - but let us not kid ourselves that there is some magic bullet that will exonerate the crew. The facts as known do not look good to removing the "pilot error" verdict - and to what extent that leads on to negligence/grosse negligence/recklessness, I simply do not know.
I admire your campaign to clear the poor chaps names and have absolutely no desire to blacken them further. I am a simply old low flying addicted aviator trying to make sense of this horrific crash.
My viewpoint is that to me it seems that on the evidence presented so far they made a tragic and simple mistake that resulted in tragedy.
Let us keep talking to try to make sense of it, and keep emotion out of it as far as we can - and personalities too if you can manage it!
Happy days, from a boring old git.................
Sorry Caz,
"Current" Chinook TP, trumps, "piston engine jungle clearing, 25 years ago" in spades.
"Current" Chinook TP, trumps, "piston engine jungle clearing, 25 years ago" in spades.
Would I be happy to have the accident investigation reopened to allow more evidence to be presented - of course - but we must be careful not to go down the slippery path demonstrated by WW1 where people were judged by their compatriots by the rules and mores of the time to have this re-examined by the present day "experts" under the rules pertaining today.
If we go down that route we could end up with a can of worms and have the directly opposite result to that to which you aspire.
DNA evidence backtracking old criminal cases and producing totally unexpected results is a case in point.
Let's press for a reinvestigation by all means, and and by whatever means - but let us not kid ourselves that there is some magic bullet that will exonerate the crew. The facts as known do not look good to removing the "pilot error" verdict - and to what extent that leads on to negligence/grosse negligence/recklessness, I simply do not know.
I admire your campaign to clear the poor chaps names and have absolutely no desire to blacken them further. I am a simply old low flying addicted aviator trying to make sense of this horrific crash.
My viewpoint is that to me it seems that on the evidence presented so far they made a tragic and simple mistake that resulted in tragedy.
Let us keep talking to try to make sense of it, and keep emotion out of it as far as we can - and personalities too if you can manage it!
Happy days, from a boring old git.................
bast0n:
Fair enough, there are many, including those calling for W&D's finding to be dropped that would agree with you. However I would be surprised if whatever 21st century technology is applied that it would show "beyond any doubt whatsoever" the Gross Negligence of the pilots. So I'm glad to know that you would support re-opening this Investigation. The reason that I want the Investigation to be re-opened is because I believe it would uncover, if this time allowed to do so, widespread flouting of the MOD's Airworthiness Regulations in respect to the granting of a limited RTS for the Chinook Mk2. It may further discover that might well have lead directly to this accident, that it was the probable cause. It might not of course, but if the RAF takes this course it needs to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and fair, as of course it should be. The last BoI was not, the ROs' finding was not, and that has put the Royal Air Force into disrepute. A chance then to redeem its honour, and that of two of its deceased JO's as well.
My viewpoint is that to me it seems that on the evidence presented so far they made a tragic and simple mistake that resulted in tragedy.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thor Nogson
You wrote << Although the you present a coherent set of circumstances, and even if it is true, I can't see the MOD admitting they have been lying for all this time. And if it was a state sanctioned murder as you go on to postulate, I think there is even less likelihood of anyone admitting to that>>
The first step would be to get a concensus view by a body representing the interested parties; if you say that even if you got that far the state cannot be held accountable or will not respond to reasonable concerns anyway then you have a big problem with the regime that you live under – that is why you have a supposedly independent judiciary – in less well managed societies than the “mother of all democracies” the people from time to time attempt to regain control of their countries but, using NI as an example, you can see what they are up against.
Some good could come out of this tragic crash if, had there been any degree of cover up in any respect, the public were successful in forcing the truth out – it could be an important test case in ensuring future accountability in what is supposed to be a free society – and if unsuccessful, then perhaps the people should reflect ...
You wrote << Although the you present a coherent set of circumstances, and even if it is true, I can't see the MOD admitting they have been lying for all this time. And if it was a state sanctioned murder as you go on to postulate, I think there is even less likelihood of anyone admitting to that>>
The first step would be to get a concensus view by a body representing the interested parties; if you say that even if you got that far the state cannot be held accountable or will not respond to reasonable concerns anyway then you have a big problem with the regime that you live under – that is why you have a supposedly independent judiciary – in less well managed societies than the “mother of all democracies” the people from time to time attempt to regain control of their countries but, using NI as an example, you can see what they are up against.
Some good could come out of this tragic crash if, had there been any degree of cover up in any respect, the public were successful in forcing the truth out – it could be an important test case in ensuring future accountability in what is supposed to be a free society – and if unsuccessful, then perhaps the people should reflect ...
Walter Kennedy:
As far as your quote is concerned, Walter, it would seem that you and I are in violent agreement. Personally I do not believe there was State Sponsored Murder done that day (that's for JP and his "many folk"), but I do believe there was manslaughter done. In that it would seem I am in even further agreement, this time with the Messrs Wratten and Day. They effectively planted that verdict on the pilots with their finding of Gross Negligence. Right finding, wrongly planted! This accident started in the MOD by rushing an unairworthy aircraft type into service in direct contravention of its own Airworthiness Regulations. That aircraft, along with all its sister Mk2's, had severe Engine and Flight Control Airworthiness faults that could erupt without warning. I believe that such an eruption occurred to this aircraft on that flight and caused this accident. If so that would be Corporate Manslaughter IMHO.
Some good could come out of this tragic crash if, had there been any degree of cover up in any respect, the public were successful in forcing the truth out – it could be an important test case in ensuring future accountability in what is supposed to be a free society – and if unsuccessful, then perhaps the people should reflect ...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 6th Jul 2009 at 12:17.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I will attempt to answer some of your more recent questions.
No, I have never picked up a new aircraft. Many though from Marshalls and the like after majors.
If you read Burke he mentions UCFM's, (plural) and Power Interupts, (plural), so a total of at least four incidents.
As many as twenty. I still don't know.
Accident v Incident. I still don't know.
Could these events have been a factor in the crash? Read Chug 5161 link Report, para 170. In the opinion of an expert witness, Burke, they could have been.
Read Cows, 5146. Burden of proof. Until you now disprove the Burke statement you have failed to reach the requirements.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in 3207 that states:
"Officers of Air Rank, and very important Staff Officers may disregard these orders."
This applies to JP and Jock Craig also.
Cows, it is "almost impossible", but not quite to show negligence by deceased aircrew. Somewhere back in the distant past I brought up the case of a Lightning pilot who carried out an unauthorised Air Display off the North East coast (circa 1971). He crashed and died. Not only was he not authorised, his authoriser had forbidden him to do it. (In front of several witnesses).
Disobeying a direct order can do it.
I will attempt to answer some of your more recent questions.
No, I have never picked up a new aircraft. Many though from Marshalls and the like after majors.
If you read Burke he mentions UCFM's, (plural) and Power Interupts, (plural), so a total of at least four incidents.
As many as twenty. I still don't know.
Accident v Incident. I still don't know.
Could these events have been a factor in the crash? Read Chug 5161 link Report, para 170. In the opinion of an expert witness, Burke, they could have been.
Read Cows, 5146. Burden of proof. Until you now disprove the Burke statement you have failed to reach the requirements.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in 3207 that states:
"Officers of Air Rank, and very important Staff Officers may disregard these orders."
This applies to JP and Jock Craig also.
Cows, it is "almost impossible", but not quite to show negligence by deceased aircrew. Somewhere back in the distant past I brought up the case of a Lightning pilot who carried out an unauthorised Air Display off the North East coast (circa 1971). He crashed and died. Not only was he not authorised, his authoriser had forbidden him to do it. (In front of several witnesses).
Disobeying a direct order can do it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
Re your 5186
Your opinion is "what seems to you to be probably true / an estimation".
The AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC gave their "Findings" in accordance with AP3207, Queens Regulations and the Air Force Act as approved by Parliament. Those "Findings" were endorsed by CAS. MRAF Lord Craig is also on record as concurring with those Findings.
NB "Findings" in this context is defined as " A Judicial Verdict".
PS Is Jock still with us? I've not seen him since 1970!!
Best wishes
Re your 5186
Your opinion is "what seems to you to be probably true / an estimation".
The AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC gave their "Findings" in accordance with AP3207, Queens Regulations and the Air Force Act as approved by Parliament. Those "Findings" were endorsed by CAS. MRAF Lord Craig is also on record as concurring with those Findings.
NB "Findings" in this context is defined as " A Judicial Verdict".
PS Is Jock still with us? I've not seen him since 1970!!
Best wishes
caz:
You may well say that caz but I feel compelled to comment that: "No, they did not!".
The AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC gave their "Findings" in accordance with AP3207, Queens Regulations and the Air Force Act as approved by Parliament.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Chugalug2. Chug; I read your
"The reason that I want the Investigation to be re-opened is because I believe it would uncover, if this time allowed to do so, widespread flouting of the MOD's Airworthiness Regulations in respect to the granting of a limited RTS for the Chinook Mk2. It may further discover that might well have lead directly to this accident, that it was the probable cause. It might not of course......."
If memory serves (and I do not have the references here in the Cotswolds), then MOD has always said that the investigation would be reopened if new evidence were produced.
Can you produce something relevant?
Regards as always, JP
"The reason that I want the Investigation to be re-opened is because I believe it would uncover, if this time allowed to do so, widespread flouting of the MOD's Airworthiness Regulations in respect to the granting of a limited RTS for the Chinook Mk2. It may further discover that might well have lead directly to this accident, that it was the probable cause. It might not of course......."
If memory serves (and I do not have the references here in the Cotswolds), then MOD has always said that the investigation would be reopened if new evidence were produced.
Can you produce something relevant?
Regards as always, JP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
What you or I think is of little importance.
Air Cdre Derek Hine thinks that the "burden of proof" requirement in 3207 has not been met.
He added the "Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever" requirement in 1982.
He was the then Inspector of Flight Safety tasked with revising terms and conditions of BOI's.
I assume the Air Force Board approved the changes, or we have all been working to illegal rules for years.
So I ask again. "Where in the 3207 does it say that Officers of Air Rank, and Staff Officers are exempt from the rule."
Air Cdre Hine has signed the Mull petition.
He has also written an article in ComputerWeekly stating, that , "in his opinion", computer software problems were more likely than pilot error.
What you or I think is of little importance.
Air Cdre Derek Hine thinks that the "burden of proof" requirement in 3207 has not been met.
He added the "Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever" requirement in 1982.
He was the then Inspector of Flight Safety tasked with revising terms and conditions of BOI's.
I assume the Air Force Board approved the changes, or we have all been working to illegal rules for years.
So I ask again. "Where in the 3207 does it say that Officers of Air Rank, and Staff Officers are exempt from the rule."
Air Cdre Hine has signed the Mull petition.
He has also written an article in ComputerWeekly stating, that , "in his opinion", computer software problems were more likely than pilot error.
JP
Can you produce evidence, not just opinion, that supports the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" requirement in force at the time of the BoI? If you can then this thread can be locked. If not then the BoI is flawed and should be overturned.
Innocent until proven guilty to use non-military speak - and IMHO the Mr Wratten and Mr Day have proven nothing!
Can you produce evidence, not just opinion, that supports the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" requirement in force at the time of the BoI? If you can then this thread can be locked. If not then the BoI is flawed and should be overturned.
Innocent until proven guilty to use non-military speak - and IMHO the Mr Wratten and Mr Day have proven nothing!
JP:
No, but the HoL did, by examining witnesses and evidence that the BoI did badly or not at all. The problem of course is that the MOD decides that such evidence is not "new" and that such "witnesses" are not germane. I think that it would all rather have appealed to Lewis Caroll! This scandal will never be resolved by the MOD as it is at the heart of it. So it has to be done from outside. A QC, perhaps? Or is it time for the Royal Air Force to disassociate itself from all of this once and for all by finally carrying out a thorough and fair accident investigation?
Can you produce something relevant?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Difficult question. Best ignore.
If Derek Hine, who wrote the relevant parts of the 3207 says that the Reviewing Officers did not comply with the relevant rules, he has to be right. He is the one who wrote the rules.
Discuss?
Difficult question. Best ignore.
If Derek Hine, who wrote the relevant parts of the 3207 says that the Reviewing Officers did not comply with the relevant rules, he has to be right. He is the one who wrote the rules.
Discuss?
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
Caz,
we've done this only recently:
Queens Regulation 1271 (6) states that the Reviewing Officers are to record an opinion Nowhere does it state that they have the authority to substitute the verdict of the President of a properly constituted Board of Inquiry.
'Finding' and 'Opinion' - two totally separate things.
Also, I don't know where you get this 'Judicial Verdict' from. It specifically states at the beginning of QR 1267 (1):
A Board of Inquiry, not being a court of law...
Mr Purdey,
you know only too well that we have, amongst our group, some 'high powered lawyers' as you, yourself, referred to them in your post #5063. I don't know why you could not answer Chug directly, although suspect that it is because you only do questions, not answers.
Apologies for not being about as much as I would like. Time being devoted to work, and preparation for a forthcoming challenge (100km walk in 30 hrs
)
However, I will be here to 'irritate' as much as I am able over the next few weeks.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
we've done this only recently:
The AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC gave their "Findings" in accordance with AP3207, Queens Regulations and the Air Force Act as approved by Parliament. Those "Findings" were endorsed by CAS. MRAF Lord Craig is also on record as concurring with those Findings.
'Finding' and 'Opinion' - two totally separate things.
Also, I don't know where you get this 'Judicial Verdict' from. It specifically states at the beginning of QR 1267 (1):
A Board of Inquiry, not being a court of law...
Mr Purdey,
you know only too well that we have, amongst our group, some 'high powered lawyers' as you, yourself, referred to them in your post #5063. I don't know why you could not answer Chug directly, although suspect that it is because you only do questions, not answers.
Apologies for not being about as much as I would like. Time being devoted to work, and preparation for a forthcoming challenge (100km walk in 30 hrs
)However, I will be here to 'irritate' as much as I am able over the next few weeks.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I should pose your question re Brian's "QC's" to Brian himself, JP. I understand that a QC is investigating Nimrod Airworthiness (or lack thereof). Seems to me that if he is the man for that job then perhaps Chinook Mk2 airworthiness might come under a similar (or even the same?) Review. Interestingly you do not comment on my preferred option that the Royal Air Force reopens this Investigation on its own volition. Unprecedented to do so against the wishes of the MOD perhaps, but then we live in unprecedented times, of an Airworthiness Authority knowingly foisting unairworthy aircraft onto the Royal Air Force. Perhaps it is time for some of the glittering stars in the firmament with titles such as "Air Officer Commanding" or even "Air Officer Commanding in Chief" to do a bit of Commanding and a little less Career Development?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Chug. We are going round in circles.. As I understand it, MOD has stuck to the line that only new evidence will cause them to reopen the inquiry. So if you have something about the unairwothyness of these aircraft, or indeed anything else useful or relevant, let us have it. or give it to him/them.
I ask only because I would like to know where you are going. What is holding you back?
Brian. Good luck with your walk!
Regards. JP
I ask only because I would like to know where you are going. What is holding you back?
Brian. Good luck with your walk!
Regards. JP