Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP, there lies the dilemma. There is no need for new evidence as there isn't enough extant evidence to support the assertion of Gross Negligence. The MOD need to recognise that their judgement, based on the (lack of) evidence that they currently have, is flawed.
Brian - you're mad. Good luck.
Brian - you're mad. Good luck.
JP, I am not being held back by anyone or anything. I am not a potential witness to a BoI nor do I uniquely hold evidence for their perusal. I am aware though, thanks to the excellent work of the HoL, that others qualify on both counts. That's the thing, JP, I am but one of an army of people who know that. The only people going round in circles are the MOD and their apologists who repeatedly deny the existence of such witnesses or evidence. In your own memorable words...unacceptable!!
So, will you support the reopening of this Accident Investigation by the Royal Air Force against the wishes of the MOD if necessary as I have called for above, JP?
Good luck indeed, Brian, though I suggest that Cows has a valid point!
So, will you support the reopening of this Accident Investigation by the Royal Air Force against the wishes of the MOD if necessary as I have called for above, JP?
Good luck indeed, Brian, though I suggest that Cows has a valid point!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Caz:
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.
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.
I remain convinced that this was one such accident.
I remain convinced that this was one such accident.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BastOn
You said:
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 don't feel that Tapper & Cook received the fair and unbiased hearing that the Air Marshal promised. Do you?
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
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank
On that basis no one would ever make a judgement on anything..............!
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..............!
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter2
Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
in circumstances where 'no doubt whatsoever' was the criterion.
Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
bast0n:
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!
'no doubt whatsoever' ...
Those words.....are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
Those words.....are not achievable or realistic. You know this.....................
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!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn
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.
Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.
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.