Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
It's rather like illegal orders, caz. "Disregard the Airworthiness Regulations but sign them off as complied with", is an illegal order. All ranks are required to disobey it and report it to their superiors. As Dalek says; LAC to MRAF (presumably he has to go to HMQ!).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
And helpfully from dalek:
Whoopsy Daisy!
I think we may be getting somewhere!
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.
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.
Air Cdre Hine's "requirements" in AP3207 were approved by the Air Force Board.
I think we may be getting somewhere!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please answer CAZ,
Did the RO's "findings" comply with AP 3207?
Or, off their own bat ( and quite illegaly), they decided they were exempt from this regulation.
JP, feel free to answer. Not new though, you probably knew illegal all along.
Walter,
Interesting post.
Did the RO's "findings" comply with AP 3207?
Or, off their own bat ( and quite illegaly), they decided they were exempt from this regulation.
JP, feel free to answer. Not new though, you probably knew illegal all along.
Walter,
Interesting post.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
"Known" is possession of the relevant facts. Those facts were laid out in the BOI upon which they made their decisions.
Speculation that there may have been some fault which denied the Pilots the ability to control the aircraft immediately after waypoint change and then disappeared without trace is just that - SPECULATION.
There are people who believe that the Film "Capricorn One" (starring that fine example of American chivalry, OJ Simpson) was an exposition of the fallacy of the Moon Landing.
I do not believe that one either.
"Known" is possession of the relevant facts. Those facts were laid out in the BOI upon which they made their decisions.
Speculation that there may have been some fault which denied the Pilots the ability to control the aircraft immediately after waypoint change and then disappeared without trace is just that - SPECULATION.
There are people who believe that the Film "Capricorn One" (starring that fine example of American chivalry, OJ Simpson) was an exposition of the fallacy of the Moon Landing.
I do not believe that one either.
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
Speculation that there may have been some fault which denied the Pilots the ability to control the aircraft immediately after waypoint change and then disappeared without trace is just that - SPECULATION.
Why is the ACOs speculation different to anyone else's? Why is his speculation afforded factual status?
Going back to my earlier post on 'findings' and 'opinions', I was quoting from QRs Caz. It specifically states that the ROs are entitled to an opinion. Nowhere does it give them authority to change a finding of a BoI, or state that they have to reach a finding. The Regulations are quite specific.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 8th Jul 2009 at 10:56. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
Did they read the "requirements" or were they just given a synopsis prepared by Officers much more junior than themselves? Perhaps it was presented as just an update with no major changes? Do you know for sure? What do the minutes of the meeting say? Please enlighten me.
Did they read the "requirements" or were they just given a synopsis prepared by Officers much more junior than themselves? Perhaps it was presented as just an update with no major changes? Do you know for sure? What do the minutes of the meeting say? Please enlighten me.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz, you're on a bit of a sticky wicket there. If the AFB AOC CinC etc approves something by signing-off a document, they then become accountable for the contents of their document. Rather like a pilot is accountable for checking the weather/serviceability before flight. 
I'm a little uncomfortable with this whole "rank" thing. Surely it should be relatively easy to confirm whether the defined process was followed, irrespective of rank or personality?
I'm a little uncomfortable with this whole "rank" thing. Surely it should be relatively easy to confirm whether the defined process was followed, irrespective of rank or personality?
Caz, you're on a bit of a sticky wicket there.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I don't have the minutes. Do you?
Are you saying that the AFB ( or at least a part of it), signed off on such an important order by without fully understanding it?
That really flies in the face of your infalibility theory for Air Officers.
Or perhaps you are saying that the AFB were briefed by inferior Staff Officers when Wratten and Day were briefed by "The Elite" (You included).
Bit arrogant isn't it?
Even if the AFB were somewhat led astray by these "inferior" Staff Officers, they had 12 years to put it right before the Mull BOI.
Are you seriously suggesting that in all that time, neither they, or their Staffs spotted anything they would like to change.
The AP3207 was modified many times over the period.
Now,
Same question:
Did the AM's "findings" comply with AP3207.
If I signed off on an Order and then used the excuse I didn't understand it, I would face posible disciplinary action. To protect Wratten and Day, shall we discipline these idiots in the AFB who clearly did not understand what they were signing?
I don't have the minutes. Do you?
Are you saying that the AFB ( or at least a part of it), signed off on such an important order by without fully understanding it?
That really flies in the face of your infalibility theory for Air Officers.
Or perhaps you are saying that the AFB were briefed by inferior Staff Officers when Wratten and Day were briefed by "The Elite" (You included).
Bit arrogant isn't it?
Even if the AFB were somewhat led astray by these "inferior" Staff Officers, they had 12 years to put it right before the Mull BOI.
Are you seriously suggesting that in all that time, neither they, or their Staffs spotted anything they would like to change.
The AP3207 was modified many times over the period.
Now,
Same question:
Did the AM's "findings" comply with AP3207.
If I signed off on an Order and then used the excuse I didn't understand it, I would face posible disciplinary action. To protect Wratten and Day, shall we discipline these idiots in the AFB who clearly did not understand what they were signing?
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
While we are on about the Air Force Board, it is worth noting that the rules of procedure provide that the power to convene, or re-convene a Board of Inquiry may be exercised by any two members of the Air Force Board of the Defence Council (of which the Secretary of State for Defence is a member).
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
Just when, exactly, during your RAF Service did you last read the Manual of Flight Safety from cover to cover? I don't mean look for a reference but read it thoroughly.
It's a bit like reading MAFL or QR's for the vast majority of Service Personnel -you don't take it away on holiday to pass the time; you keep (or have access to) a copy as a Reference Book that you hope you don't need in anger.
Tell us please, exactly when did you find out about the caveat in respect of Negligence? Not that it really matters, because you -along with all the other contributors to this thread (including myself) - were not burdened with the onerous Duty of making a Finding in this matter. That fell upon AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC; reinforced by CAS who personally reviewed the matter before release. You may disagree with the conclusions that they came to but that does not give you the right to calumniate them.
Just when, exactly, during your RAF Service did you last read the Manual of Flight Safety from cover to cover? I don't mean look for a reference but read it thoroughly.
It's a bit like reading MAFL or QR's for the vast majority of Service Personnel -you don't take it away on holiday to pass the time; you keep (or have access to) a copy as a Reference Book that you hope you don't need in anger.
Tell us please, exactly when did you find out about the caveat in respect of Negligence? Not that it really matters, because you -along with all the other contributors to this thread (including myself) - were not burdened with the onerous Duty of making a Finding in this matter. That fell upon AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC; reinforced by CAS who personally reviewed the matter before release. You may disagree with the conclusions that they came to but that does not give you the right to calumniate them.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I first found out about "burden of proof" for dead aircrew on my first IFS course in London 1985.
It was stressed very heavily on that course, and I have never forgotten it.
Now were are we again in this discussion?
You started off by saying that all of the RO's "Findings" "Complied" with AP 3207.
The man who wrote the relevant section AP 3207 says they did not, and has had this section approved by the AFB. So his rank is of no importance.
Either they respected and complied with the AP or they chose to disregard it.
Which is it.
I first found out about "burden of proof" for dead aircrew on my first IFS course in London 1985.
It was stressed very heavily on that course, and I have never forgotten it.
Now were are we again in this discussion?
You started off by saying that all of the RO's "Findings" "Complied" with AP 3207.
The man who wrote the relevant section AP 3207 says they did not, and has had this section approved by the AFB. So his rank is of no importance.
Either they respected and complied with the AP or they chose to disregard it.
Which is it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Dalek. Your 5208 (Question still stands to you and Caz. Answer it, or admit you have no "reasoned" reply).
I do not think I have seen polemics at that level since I was in the IVth Form debating society at school.
Regards. John Purdey
I do not think I have seen polemics at that level since I was in the IVth Form debating society at school.
Regards. John Purdey
caz:
Well they sure "calumniated" the two pilots, caz, didn't they? Are you now saying that if their finding was not in accordance with AP3207 it was because they were all so overburdened with their "duty"? For once I am willing to concede that you might well be right, that they made an enormous blunder, because their duty was beyond their abilities. For whatever reason this Finding was wrong, was not in accordance with RAF regulations and must be put aside forthwith. Then someone somewhere should seriously set to work to discover why this aircraft crashed and killed 29 people, because that has yet to be done!
....were not burdened with the onerous Duty of making a Finding in this matter. That fell upon AOC 1 Gp and AOC in C STC; reinforced by CAS who personally reviewed the matter before release. You may disagree with the conclusions that they came to but that does not give you the right to calumniate them
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
Those 2 Pilots flew their aircraft at high speed and low level directly towards fog enshrouded high ground into which they subsequently crashed. There was no distress call, emergency squawk or SARBE activation prior to the crash which occurred whilst the Handling Pilot was engaged in attempting an emergency escape manouvre. There was no evidence that the Passengers and Rear Crew had adopted crash positions or were even aware of any form of emergency, let alone the impending crash. No evidence was found of any technical malfunction that could have caused the aircraft to crash. Groundspeed at impact was in the region of 150 kts and the average groundspeed from the ATC fix departing Belfast to impact was 158 kts.
It should be remembered that, when the pilots initiated the waypoint change, it was too late at that point to initiate even an emergency climb to Safety Altitude maintaining safe separation from the ground.
Those 2 Pilots flew their aircraft at high speed and low level directly towards fog enshrouded high ground into which they subsequently crashed. There was no distress call, emergency squawk or SARBE activation prior to the crash which occurred whilst the Handling Pilot was engaged in attempting an emergency escape manouvre. There was no evidence that the Passengers and Rear Crew had adopted crash positions or were even aware of any form of emergency, let alone the impending crash. No evidence was found of any technical malfunction that could have caused the aircraft to crash. Groundspeed at impact was in the region of 150 kts and the average groundspeed from the ATC fix departing Belfast to impact was 158 kts.
It should be remembered that, when the pilots initiated the waypoint change, it was too late at that point to initiate even an emergency climb to Safety Altitude maintaining safe separation from the ground.