Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 6th Jul 2009, 19:18
  #5141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
cazatou, my thanks for your reply (5118) to my post (5115). You are correct; I was unaware that, formally, the AOC is part of the BoI.
However, is it not then the responsibility of either the current head of 1 Group (or its successor organisation), or his current superior to reconvene the Board if required?
If the original BoI personnel (those still serving at any rate) are to be reconvened, would it not be to the current AOC that they should answer? Are you somehow implying that if the then junior members of the BoI were to reconvene, that they would be acting improperly if they returned a verdict other than that decided by the AOC in 1994, even though that would mean reversing their own decision at the time?
Please bear in mind that a new BoI would not be a trial of the former AOC or AOCinC, but merely a reassessment of the evidence.

Last edited by CarltonBrowne the FO; 7th Jul 2009 at 10:23.
CarltonBrowne the FO is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2009, 19:48
  #5142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
Brian

We have been here before.

The BOI into an aircraft accident is the Convening Officers BOI and He/She delegates the investigative function to a team of specialists who are experienced on that type of aircraft. The team are invited to give their OPINION as to the cause of the accident but this is not binding on the Reviewing Officers in the same way as the opinions of investigating Police Officers are not binding on Magistrates, Judges or Juries.

The BOI findings are commented on by Specialist Staff Officers from each Branch in respect of their specialities and passed through their Heads of Branch to SASO and thence to AOC and AOCinC.

It is NOT unusual for a BOI to be reconvened with a different President because the original one has made a complete "Pigs Ear" of the investigation. I recall one BOI years ago that was reconvened twice!!

The aim of the BOI is to investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident - not to allocate blame. There are, unfortunately, accidents where it is apparent that basic rules of Airmanship and Discipline have been ignored and the Convening Officers are left with no option but to lay the cause of the accident upon those who have failed to comply with those rules.

I remain convinced that this was one such accident.
cazatou is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2009, 20:34
  #5143 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
There are, unfortunately, accidents where it is apparent that basic rules of Airmanship and Discipline have been ignored and the Convening Officers are left with no option but to lay the cause of the accident upon those who have failed to comply with those rules.
- there are indeed, but that comment is not KNOWN to be relevant to this accident. I do not disagree otherwise with one iota of this part of your statement.
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2009, 20:34
  #5144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
Caz:
There are, unfortunately, accidents where it is apparent that basic rules of Airmanship and Discipline have been ignored and the Convening Officers are left with no option but to lay the cause of the accident upon those who have failed to comply with those rules.

I remain convinced that this was one such accident.
Caz, There are, unfortunately, accidents where it is apparent that basic rules of Airworthiness Provision have been ignored and the Convening Officers are left with no option but to lay the cause of the accident upon those who have failed to comply with those rules.

I remain convinced that this was one such accident.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2009, 20:53
  #5145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786



Funny how working through the basics brings to light little gems: can you believe that waypoint H is about 1km east of a village called Curran and waypoint B is about 1 km east of a village called Corran – just a different letter – the Curran to Corran track!
Another thing about the letters is the sequence of the waypoints: there were 5 waypoints entered manually into the SuperTANS for this flight (extra to the “library” for the theatre) and these were:
H Curran
A LZ (on the Mull)
B Corran
C Ft George
D Inverness A/P
(Last 2 from memory just now, its the first 3 that are of interest here.)
Odd sequence of letters? Well we have had discussion about planning and as far as I can gather, Lts K & T did the basic planning for the sortie and then Flt Lt Tapper took it over and did some more and said that he and his crew had done extensive training for it. A conclusion of the discussions between Lts K, T, & Tapper was that the only option was LL VFR (fuel & alternates, remember the posts on this?). Now if you were planning a safe, routine VFR LL from Aldergrove to the Great Glen with some dubious weather around, you would avoid the Antrim Hills and the Mull (on the day, the weather would not have to have been much worse and the Antrim Hills route would not have been on). The route Aldergrove to H and then along 028 mag track to B would have avoided any high ground until the Great Glen and, with the wind coming from the south, they would have had some nice scenery for the passengers as they flew close along the clear shore of Jura – check out the diagram!
So I suggest that someone asks Lts K & T if they thought they had done all the necessary planning with the following waypoints:
A Curran
B Corran
C Ft George
D Inverness
But Flt Lt Tapper and his crew had been doing extensive training for this sortie?!!
And we know he took the 027 radial from Aldergrove all the way to the position of waypoint change – only a matter of hundreds of metres from a claggy shore. The 027 radial (with the VAR back then) from Aldergrove VOR site went directly to the position of a waypoint on the Mull – obviously not using the VOR all that way but the SuperTANS would have given that track with that waypoint (Mull) selected.
So I suggest that Flt Lt Tapper added the waypoint on the Mull to the initial plan – but although he obviously had his own reason for going there, weather may have prevented him crossing the Antrim hills and so he prudently kept waypoint A Curran – but again, what to do about a nice sequence of letters? - presumably the preferred path would go A, B, C etc so the waypoint on the Mull was designated A and the safer LL starter was re-designated H so his SuperTANS had loaded:
H Curran
A LZ on the Mull
B Corran
C Ft George
D Inverness
And the route on the diagram I posted, 027, is what they took.
Flt Lt Tapper's HoSI still had 028 on its course setting: I had addressed this on a previous post; having done whatever the business was at the Mull, they would have had to have turned back to sea (remember they had planned only for LL VFR) and by keeping 028 on his HoSI they just had to turn roughly north west and run out until they reached the track of 028 mag to waypoint B (Corran) - waypoint B was selected on the SuperTANS and so the track bars would have been a guide just like turning onto a VOR radial in VOR nav - which not only got them back to the nice clear scenic run along Jura and getting around the approach to Mac runway but also, if you look at the trapezoid tracks in that diagram, they would have not, in their diversion to the Mull, have extended their flying distance, time nor schedule from the initial planning – I believe that they changed waypoints where they did so as to have this set up in the SuperTANS, so that they would be ready for the turnaround back to sea, presumably no longer needing the Doppler/GPS nav computer for whatever it was they were doing on the Mull.

Last edited by walter kennedy; 6th Jul 2009 at 22:21. Reason: adding text to figure
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 06:55
  #5146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 73
Posts: 370
Caz,
Re your 5187
The AM's gave there "Findings", in accordance with AP3207.
NO THEY DID NOT.
Who says so?
The man who introduced the "Requirements" for these "Findings" into service.
Now answer the question.
I know John Purdey will ignore again. This is far too difficult a question for him to answer.
dalek is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 08:15
  #5147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. I have already said that I am not prepared to take part in these endless circular arguments. If Chug or anyone else can produce something new, then that is a different matter. Regards. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 09:21
  #5148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,968
If Chug or anyone else can produce something new, then that is a different matter

The usual MoD line about "new" evidence, while ignoring existing evidence.

But, contrary to popular belief, this has not always been MoD's position.

For example, on 3rd July 2000 Min(AF) John Spellar wrote;
"We have, however, always said that we are ready to examine carefully anything thought to provide a fresh insight into this crash, and that remains the case".
I believe that the Chief of Defence Procurement's admission 15 months earlier, to the Committee of Public Accounts, that one of the pillars of airworthiness had been allowed to crumble on Chinook (and other aircraft), should be taken seriously.

It is not often a 4 Star makes such an admission of abrogation of Duty of Care, which resulted in an inability to validate or verify an aircraft airworthiness audit trail. To be fair, his junior staffs at the time actively prevented knowledgeable staffs briefing him, so he was probably caught unawares and blurted out the truth. Nevertheless, given the preoccupation with rank on this thread (in that rank is always right, regardless of the facts), I believe a 4 Star trumps mere 2 / 3 Star ROs. Surely his admission carries some weight, and deserves to be heeded alongside the ROs' opinions?

While not exactly news, as it had been RAF policy for the previous 8 years not to bother too much with that tiresome and expensive subject of maintaining airworthiness, in the context of evidence made available to the BoI I believe this constitutes a "fresh insight".

But, of course, MoD swiftly changed tack again, back to “new evidence”. And, as failure to implement mandated airworthiness regs is by no means new, we have an impasse. But we also have key facts should natural justice prevail.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 11:01
  #5149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 73
Posts: 370
JP,
The Burke evidence was never considered by the Board or the RO's.
"If" they had considered this evidence and then accepted or rejected it, my continued insistance on raising the issue would indeed be circular.
Since they, and you insist on ignoring this evidence, it is not.

I do not remember in this thread anyone stating that the Author of AP3207, rejected CAZ's interpretation on "Burden of Proof." Again, a new statement.

Question still stands to you and Caz. Answer it, or admit you have no "reasoned" reply.
dalek is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 13:50
  #5150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
CarltonBrowne the FO
Re your #5200

In your scenario the current AOC would be able to overturn the Findings of the then AOC 1 Gp in respect of the BOI report of 1994/5. I assume that the Rank of the current AOC is Air Vice Marshal whereas Sir John Day retired as an Air Chief Marshal. In addition, the CinC STC at the time concurred with (and expanded on) the AOC's findings and he was also an Air Chief Marshal. Uniquely, in my experience, the then CAS (an Air Chief Marshal) also reviewed the BOI and its Findings before publication and did not require any alterations to the Findings. You will also be aware that MRAF Lord Craig (who is still a Serving Officer) is on record as strongly supporting the Findings of the Reviewing Officers in respect of this BOI.

It would appear to me that you would have to produce at least two MRAF's and four ACM's who are in agreement with you if you wish to overturn the Findings. That, I feel, could prove rather difficult.
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 13:51
  #5151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
BastOn

You said:
I'm on the side of "on the balance of probability". I don't think there were any signs of UFCM,s and Power Interrupts
If you were the one required to pass judgement, you could not, therefore, pass a verdict of Gross Negligence by Tapper & Cook because you cannot say that "beyond any doubt whatsoever" neither UFCM nor power interrupt (nor anything else) occurred. Please be kind enough, therefore, to sign the petition.

To answer several inquiries within this thread:

For the years 1994-1999 (inclusive), a total of 35 UFCMs were reported on the Chinook, none of them resulting in an accident. In (I believe) 1998, a US Army Chinook completed an unintentional 360 deg roll, losing 850 ft in the process. No fault could be found in the (intact) aircraft, though US investigators decided the most likely cause was contamination of hydraulic fluid. Similar contamination was found in the wreckage of ZD576.

For general discussion:

In his contraversial letter to AOCs (which he authorised to be copied to Station Commanders), dated Feb 95, AVM Wratten wrote that....
I wish you .... to convey, once again, the clear message through the command chain that unmitigated carelessness or indiscipline will not be tolerated and will be met with formal proceedings. This will of course in no way undermine the certainty for those affected of a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process.
I don't feel that Tapper & Cook received the fair and unbiased hearing that the Air Marshal promised. Do you?
meadowbank is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 15:34
  #5152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
BOAC

Your 5202

It is relevant because the AOC decided it was relevant; as did the AOCinC and CAS. I, like yourself, did not have the burden of adjudication; so some might consider our views are interesting but not relevant.

Interesting post by Walter don't you think?
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 17:06
  #5153 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
As are all WK's posts.

I think you missed the word KNOWN?
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 17:13
  #5154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
Meadowbank

If you were the one required to pass judgement, you could not, therefore, pass a verdict of Gross Negligence by Tapper & Cook because you cannot say that "beyond any doubt whatsoever" neither UFCM nor power interrupt (nor anything else) occurred. Please be kind enough, therefore, to sign the petition.
On that basis no one would ever make a judgement on anything..............!
bast0n is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 18:12
  #5155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,039
On that basis no one would ever make a judgement on anything..............!
in circumstances where 'no doubt whatsoever' was the criterion.

One can, however on the balance of probablities, conclude that the defence of the indefensible by a small number of people directly concerned with the lamentable state of airworthiness control is more to do with hoping a cover up will save their reputations than a desire for the truth to emerge.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 19:58
  #5156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
Fitter2

in circumstances where 'no doubt whatsoever' was the criterion.

Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
bast0n is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 20:40
  #5157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
bast0n:

'no doubt whatsoever' ...
Those words.....are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
Then you must agree that they were not achieved, bast0n, and so Wratten and Day were wrong to publish a Finding of Gross Negligence in defiance of that RAF requirement! Everyone else toes the line, but AOC's and AOC-in-C's can make it up as they go along. Is that your view, bast0n? It was quite obviously theirs. Personally I find that Grossly Offensive; no proof but mere conjecture based on some very dubious "modelling" of some very dubious evidence following a Board of Inquiry that seemed bent on inquiring not too much into type Airworthiness or en-route weather, add a great dollop of opinion and we have a "Finding". Well I have a "Finding". This farago was a stitch up. Two junior officers' reputations were trashed to save the compromised reputations of their seniors. Disgraceful, and don't for one minute think that this was done to protect the reputation of the Royal Air Force, because it has been badly mired by this dishonourable act. If there is anyone left in command of the Royal Air Force, that should be their primary aim now, to recover that reputation. If that leads to a similar loss by those implicated in the affair, too bad. Live by the sword....
Reopen the inquiry, stop prevaricating, study all the evidence, as has been said none of it's new but large amounts of it have been ignored by the RAF to date, and carry out a thorough and fair investigation, or don't bother and let others do your work for you. Your choice!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 20:43
  #5158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
bastOn
Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.
Have you ever wondered why the bar is set so very high in circumstances in which those accused of such negligence are utterly unable to defend themselves????

Let me speculate: I believe whoever designed this extremely PRECISE form of words (I believe he may be known to the campaign) did so in the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force, and also in accordance with the concept of natural justice. These two individuals are totally unable to defend themselves. Not even by a posthumous record of their voice or actions! The evidence against them should be utterly, and totally beyond question. That, it absolutely is not!

One could almost believe the words anticipated a situation exactly like this???

But then the implication in your post is that the standard of proof required by the regulations was inconvenient, and so could be ignored. Presumably the same attitude adopted by the reviewing officers??

Indeed since this BOI produced it's result, I believe 'the rules' have been changed, and it would not now be possible to find these two individuals guilty of negligence in the relevant circumstances. Sign of a guilty conscience perhaps??

At least they achieved something for those yet to pass.

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 7th Jul 2009 at 21:01.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 20:58
  #5159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
I do no see how the decision by an Air Commodore to publish a limitation such as "Absolutely no doubt whatsover" can be deemed to limit the Authority of his Superiors, including the Chief of the Air Staff, in the execution of their duties.

The question, surely, is who gave the Air Commodore permission to impose such a limitation? If such a limitation was not actually approved in writing by the Chief of the Air Staff prior to publication then the validity of such a limitation is undoubtedly called into question.
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2009, 21:09
  #5160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
cazatou (K52)

Now we may actually be getting somewhere for a change!

I think what you are saying is that some Air Commodore or other, published a 'dodgy' limitation of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" in cases precisely such as this.

However, "his Superiors, including the Chief of the Air Staff, in the execution of their duties", decided this was inconvenient, or unsuitable for consideration of this case. They knew they could not satisfy the standard required, and so, in their ultimate wisdom, ignored it.

That IS what you are saying, isn't it??

Very interesting
Tandemrotor is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.