Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Speechless Two: Had I not said 'as I see them' and 'in my opinion', then contributers like Yetti would have been even more censurious than he was. Very well, after thinking about all the fanciful alternatives that have now been floated here, for 'opinion' please read 'conviction' I can take it!
Yetti: So I have 'zero understanding of Safety Altitude'? Well then, it is a multiple miracle that I survived several hundred hours of VLL PR, quite apart from much more of less hairy aviation. You really must do better than that if you are to criticise me!
Arkroyal: The rules in force at the time included this definition of Negligence 'The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable would person do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'. Try that on the actions of the Chinook crew.
In general fellas, please let us stick to the facts we have, draw objective conclusions from them and be careful with (sometimes) wild speculations. Will be back a little later.. Yours in sadness, John Purdey.
Speechless Two, a typing slip erased the fact that most of my LL PR flying was at night. Very IMC!!. JP.
PS. The definition of negligence is to be found in AP3207 Chap 8 Annex G. JP.
Yetti: So I have 'zero understanding of Safety Altitude'? Well then, it is a multiple miracle that I survived several hundred hours of VLL PR, quite apart from much more of less hairy aviation. You really must do better than that if you are to criticise me!
Arkroyal: The rules in force at the time included this definition of Negligence 'The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable would person do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'. Try that on the actions of the Chinook crew.
In general fellas, please let us stick to the facts we have, draw objective conclusions from them and be careful with (sometimes) wild speculations. Will be back a little later.. Yours in sadness, John Purdey.
Speechless Two, a typing slip erased the fact that most of my LL PR flying was at night. Very IMC!!. JP.
PS. The definition of negligence is to be found in AP3207 Chap 8 Annex G. JP.
Just a numbered other
JP
You evade the thrust of our argument yet again.
What part of this do you think I fail to understand?
I ask you once again to produce a shred of proof positive that the pilots omitted to 'do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'.
Can't you and hoverstop see that the requirement of such a high level of proof is essential before finding the dead guilty.
exactly!
You evade the thrust of our argument yet again.
Arkroyal: The rules in force at the time included this definition of Negligence 'The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'. Try that on the actions of the Chinook crew.
I ask you once again to produce a shred of proof positive that the pilots omitted to 'do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently'.
Can't you and hoverstop see that the requirement of such a high level of proof is essential before finding the dead guilty.
In general fellas, please let us stick to the facts we have, draw objective conclusions from them and be careful with (sometimes) wild speculations.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey
Here are some extracts from the Select Committee conclusions. You will see the word foreseen mentioned. Note also the comments in 148 "Sir John's conclusions on this matter must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions"
Are you views similarly hypotheses or assumptions. They may well be correct, but there is no absolute evidence to support them.
Note also from para 147 "the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event."
146.Negligence, as a concern of the board, was not an abstract concept but could only be inferred from facts relevant to causation. Paragraph 1 of Annex G to Chapter 8 of AP3207 stated that causes of accidents broadly speaking fell into three categories: technical faults, natural operating or medical hazards and human failings. Paragraph 2 provided among other things:
"Before making a detailed assessment of human failings the board must distinguish between those irregularities which had no direct connection with the cause of the accident and those which had. This can be resolved by the answers to two questions:
a. Was the person's act which is under consideration an essential link without which the final event would not have happened?
b. Ought the person to have foreseen that their action or their failure to take action would in all probability occasion the final event?"
147. In the context of the Air Marshals' conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made, regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event. It must be borne in mind that it is not known at what height or speed the aircraft was flying at the way point change, nor its position in relation to cloud. However Sir William accepted the possibility that they could have seen the coastline under cloud cover (Q 364). Furthermore the Air Marshals' views as to the danger of the aircraft being at or in the vicinity of the way point change position even if the crew had intended to alter course at that point were much influenced by the high speed at which they assumed the aircraft then to be travelling - an assumption which, having regard to the deficiencies in the simulation which have now emerged, may no longer be justified.
148. We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions. It must be a matter of speculation what would have been the Air Marshals' conclusion if the Boeing simulation had not been available, or if its deficiencies had been identified.
173. It follows that the Air Marshals were not justified in concluding that the pilots were in control 4 seconds before impact, or at any time after the way point change. In short it has not been established to the required standard of proof that it was the voluntary action of the pilots which caused the aircraft to fly into the hill.
174. In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
Hoverstop
You say "And, in my own experience, so do most other aircrew when the topic has been discussed outside the portals of Pprune"
I bet they wouldn't if they were involved in a similar incident and survived
Here are some extracts from the Select Committee conclusions. You will see the word foreseen mentioned. Note also the comments in 148 "Sir John's conclusions on this matter must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions"
Are you views similarly hypotheses or assumptions. They may well be correct, but there is no absolute evidence to support them.
Note also from para 147 "the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event."
146.Negligence, as a concern of the board, was not an abstract concept but could only be inferred from facts relevant to causation. Paragraph 1 of Annex G to Chapter 8 of AP3207 stated that causes of accidents broadly speaking fell into three categories: technical faults, natural operating or medical hazards and human failings. Paragraph 2 provided among other things:
"Before making a detailed assessment of human failings the board must distinguish between those irregularities which had no direct connection with the cause of the accident and those which had. This can be resolved by the answers to two questions:
a. Was the person's act which is under consideration an essential link without which the final event would not have happened?
b. Ought the person to have foreseen that their action or their failure to take action would in all probability occasion the final event?"
147. In the context of the Air Marshals' conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made, regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event. It must be borne in mind that it is not known at what height or speed the aircraft was flying at the way point change, nor its position in relation to cloud. However Sir William accepted the possibility that they could have seen the coastline under cloud cover (Q 364). Furthermore the Air Marshals' views as to the danger of the aircraft being at or in the vicinity of the way point change position even if the crew had intended to alter course at that point were much influenced by the high speed at which they assumed the aircraft then to be travelling - an assumption which, having regard to the deficiencies in the simulation which have now emerged, may no longer be justified.
148. We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions. It must be a matter of speculation what would have been the Air Marshals' conclusion if the Boeing simulation had not been available, or if its deficiencies had been identified.
173. It follows that the Air Marshals were not justified in concluding that the pilots were in control 4 seconds before impact, or at any time after the way point change. In short it has not been established to the required standard of proof that it was the voluntary action of the pilots which caused the aircraft to fly into the hill.
174. In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
Hoverstop
You say "And, in my own experience, so do most other aircrew when the topic has been discussed outside the portals of Pprune"
I bet they wouldn't if they were involved in a similar incident and survived
Last edited by slj; 2nd Nov 2002 at 17:11.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Valley
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that any accident has been so picked over as this one. God bless the lads, there but for the grace go many of us...
However, while having a crew-room chat with one of the mates who didn't stop at Flt Lt (it was my choice, honest) we were discussing who would be the next CAS. The usual daft suggestions flowed back and forth, and oh how we laughed when the B-word was mentioned.
What struck me, however, was my mate's very well informed opinion Sir J could never be given the post of CAS because of the way he had screwed this investigation up so badly. Wouldn't that be an appropriate epilogue to all of this.
Roger
However, while having a crew-room chat with one of the mates who didn't stop at Flt Lt (it was my choice, honest) we were discussing who would be the next CAS. The usual daft suggestions flowed back and forth, and oh how we laughed when the B-word was mentioned.
What struck me, however, was my mate's very well informed opinion Sir J could never be given the post of CAS because of the way he had screwed this investigation up so badly. Wouldn't that be an appropriate epilogue to all of this.
Roger
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Hoverstop, many thanks. I 'm off again shortly, meanwhile at great risk of more repetition, I think we should all consider these facts. 1. As it approached waypoint change, a/c was under control (no-one has challenged this) 2. It was at low level (Yachtsman) 3. Speed was around 150 kts ( Aldergrove radar fix and time of impact data) 4. Weather at Mull was IMC (lighthouse keeper said 15-20 yds, ten local witnesses said weather generally foggy and very bad) 5. A/c was more than 500 yds right of intended track (positions of lighthouse and impact point) . 6. Ht of lighthouse about 320 ft. 7. Ht of terrain at impact 810 ft. 8. Thus, in v poor vis the crew were suddenly confronted by terrain more than 500 ft higher than anticipated. 9. They raised the nose 30 deg and started turn port (AIB), but far too late.
I will warmly welcome a challenge to any of these facts. Failing that, if the fact are accepted, can anyone offer an explanation for the tragedy other than that the crew pressed on when they should have turned away/climbed, ie and very sadly, they were negligent.
Sorry to say. John
I will warmly welcome a challenge to any of these facts. Failing that, if the fact are accepted, can anyone offer an explanation for the tragedy other than that the crew pressed on when they should have turned away/climbed, ie and very sadly, they were negligent.
Sorry to say. John
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Air Historical Branch moved premises from Great Scotland Yard to RAF Bentley Priory in 2001, 29 Pantechnicons were required to move 1.81 shelf miles of CLASSIFIED material and a similar amount of declassified material. I wonder how much of the shelf space involves the Chinook mystery, IFS (Inspectorate of Flight Safety) no longer exists, I wonder where their records have been placed?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey
"the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event"
If you read the Select Committee evidence and conclusion it makes clear that many of the so called facts were assumptions or hypotheses. We do not know what was going on in the cockpit that evening.
We do not know the cause of the catastrophe; whether it was pilot error, mechanical error, equipment error that led to the crash.
The Select Committee like every enquiry before it came to the same concusion. They were not sure of the exact cause. Therefore, they could not ascribe blame, convenient though it was for the two senior air force officers; whose second guessing the original view of the original RAF inquiry has been soundly criticised ever since.
If you know what was going on in the cockpit that night beyond all doubt, you are the only one on this earth.
"the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event"
If you read the Select Committee evidence and conclusion it makes clear that many of the so called facts were assumptions or hypotheses. We do not know what was going on in the cockpit that evening.
We do not know the cause of the catastrophe; whether it was pilot error, mechanical error, equipment error that led to the crash.
The Select Committee like every enquiry before it came to the same concusion. They were not sure of the exact cause. Therefore, they could not ascribe blame, convenient though it was for the two senior air force officers; whose second guessing the original view of the original RAF inquiry has been soundly criticised ever since.
If you know what was going on in the cockpit that night beyond all doubt, you are the only one on this earth.
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
With regard to the speed of the aircraft, one of the yachtsmen stated that when he observed the Chinook the speed of it was slow enough to make him think that it might be involved in a search and rescue in the area. He stated that he saw the aircraft quite clearly. This witness has been since quoted as being angry that his evidence was not given proper attention.
However, the point is that what evidence there was has been taken and duly considered by the best legal minds. The outcome was that there was deemed to be insufficient evidence to hold the crew grossly negligent.
This was done with concern to the law of the land and not with regard to opinion. Full stop. The campaign will and must continue to ensure that MOD cannot be seen to be able to disregard the law. That would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
However, the point is that what evidence there was has been taken and duly considered by the best legal minds. The outcome was that there was deemed to be insufficient evidence to hold the crew grossly negligent.
This was done with concern to the law of the land and not with regard to opinion. Full stop. The campaign will and must continue to ensure that MOD cannot be seen to be able to disregard the law. That would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ShyTorque, I am intrigued and possibly ignorant. Which law of the land is this? It is my understanding that whether or not a Board of Inquiry finds aircrew negligent, is down to the guidelines set by the RAF hierarchy, nothing to do with law. Those guidelines have changed over the years and at the time of the accident, I believe that unless there was no doubt at all, you could not be found negligent after an accident. Feel free to fill me in (figuratively speaking!) if you know better.
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
Hi again, Mr Purdey.
Let's take your numbered points and expand a little shall we?
1. Aircraft under control just prior to waypoint change - speculation that both sides appear to accept. There is no hard evidence.
2. Low level at the time of sighting by Mr Holbrook- shock horror! no argument here.
3. Speed around 150kts - impact data taken from instrument involved in crash. Manufacturer's guidelines state that the information contained is not reliable enough as an accident data recorder (My words not theirs).
4. Fog / cloud over the Mull - As the lighthouse keeper was stood in it, can he please tell me how far out from the Mull the cloud extended? Perhaps Mr Holbrook, who was looking from the same direction as the Chinook, may be a better judge of the thickness of the covering. Why does everyone pay less credence to his evidence? It is just as valid as everyone else.
5. Aircraft right of track - Again, speculation from instrumentation that has been known to give erroneous readings.
6. Height of lighthouse - Yup!
7. Height of terrain at impact - Yup!
8. Sudden confrontation of terrain - Speculation. There were no eye witnesses or survivors. They may have seen it coming and been unable to do anything about it.
9. Final movements of aircraft - Probable, but again a reconstruction reached from the resulting witness marks and aircraft wreckage. However, I'm happy to agree on this too. (Always finish on a positive note).
As I mentioned in my previous posting, these are simply my views and interpretations. Would you agree that it is possible to look at the evidence and have both views - yours and mine? I would.
As a conclusion, and to answer your last paragraph, I have to say that I can offer no explanation whatsoever as to why the accident occurred. Then again, with few genuine facts, no-one can.
As always, I'm happy to conceed to proven points and wherever I've got it wrong.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Let's take your numbered points and expand a little shall we?
1. Aircraft under control just prior to waypoint change - speculation that both sides appear to accept. There is no hard evidence.
2. Low level at the time of sighting by Mr Holbrook- shock horror! no argument here.
3. Speed around 150kts - impact data taken from instrument involved in crash. Manufacturer's guidelines state that the information contained is not reliable enough as an accident data recorder (My words not theirs).
4. Fog / cloud over the Mull - As the lighthouse keeper was stood in it, can he please tell me how far out from the Mull the cloud extended? Perhaps Mr Holbrook, who was looking from the same direction as the Chinook, may be a better judge of the thickness of the covering. Why does everyone pay less credence to his evidence? It is just as valid as everyone else.
5. Aircraft right of track - Again, speculation from instrumentation that has been known to give erroneous readings.
6. Height of lighthouse - Yup!
7. Height of terrain at impact - Yup!
8. Sudden confrontation of terrain - Speculation. There were no eye witnesses or survivors. They may have seen it coming and been unable to do anything about it.
9. Final movements of aircraft - Probable, but again a reconstruction reached from the resulting witness marks and aircraft wreckage. However, I'm happy to agree on this too. (Always finish on a positive note).
As I mentioned in my previous posting, these are simply my views and interpretations. Would you agree that it is possible to look at the evidence and have both views - yours and mine? I would.
As a conclusion, and to answer your last paragraph, I have to say that I can offer no explanation whatsoever as to why the accident occurred. Then again, with few genuine facts, no-one can.
As always, I'm happy to conceed to proven points and wherever I've got it wrong.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 4th Nov 2002 at 17:44.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: EGAA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange old world. I find it difficult to reconcile the dogged resistance of Government to concede to the prospect that a real element of doubt surrounds the cause of this accident, and indeed the evidence in the case; it is in sharp contrast to its ready willingness to both direct and finance public and judicial tribunals for some highly questionable causes. The Chinook incident has never been properly heard. Government owe it to both the aircrew and the families of the deceased to either accept the findings of the select ctte, or order a full and open inquiry. Had these people been terrorists they would have got a better deal.
Stay with it!!
Stay with it!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
BRIAN. Many thanks for the thoughtful and courteous repost.Your points: 1. If a/c not under control, how did crew manage to cope with the reported moderate turbulence over the sea? And why no distress call? 3. No, it was - as I said - deduced from time of the fix from Aldergrove radar and time of impact - answer an average of (I think I am right) of 153 kts. 4. What about the other ten witnesses on the Mull? 5. No, distance from lighthouse (intended waypoint) to point of impact - more than 500 yds right of intended track. 8. Why unable to do anything about it?
Of course you are entitled to your views, it is just that they seem not to coincide with mine, and nor as I said earlier in these exchanges am I trying to persuade you or anyone else.
But it still seems very odd to me that the most professional flying Service in the world could lose a valuable crew together with 25 passengers, and then say 'we do not know what went wrong'.
I maintain that there is one coherent explanation, and that is the one I have given.
I take absolutely no satisfaction from holding the conviction that I do, and as I have repeatedly said I devoutly wish that there was some other explanation.
With renewed good wishes, yours aye John Purdey
Of course you are entitled to your views, it is just that they seem not to coincide with mine, and nor as I said earlier in these exchanges am I trying to persuade you or anyone else.
But it still seems very odd to me that the most professional flying Service in the world could lose a valuable crew together with 25 passengers, and then say 'we do not know what went wrong'.
I maintain that there is one coherent explanation, and that is the one I have given.
I take absolutely no satisfaction from holding the conviction that I do, and as I have repeatedly said I devoutly wish that there was some other explanation.
With renewed good wishes, yours aye John Purdey
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Mr Purdey you have your opinion that you are sticking to. That is your perogative. You may be right.There is no way of proving whether you are right or wrong. That is why the two AMs are held in such contempt by so many for their failure to accept the law of the land. Are they hiding something?
What is fact is the there is no proof positive beyond all doubt as to what happened that night. Read what Ark royal says. Read what I posted about what the Select Committee said. I note you ignore in your replies the select Committee findings.
Your views are opinion, opinion you cannot prove beyond doubt.
As Isaid before if you could prove your case you are the only person on this earth. The ones who might, note might, know what happend are sadly no longer with us.
What is fact is the there is no proof positive beyond all doubt as to what happened that night. Read what Ark royal says. Read what I posted about what the Select Committee said. I note you ignore in your replies the select Committee findings.
Your views are opinion, opinion you cannot prove beyond doubt.
As Isaid before if you could prove your case you are the only person on this earth. The ones who might, note might, know what happend are sadly no longer with us.
Just a numbered other
Thanks slj and Brian
I have grown rather weary of Mr Purdey's politician-like ability to ignore the question put to him if it is difficult to answer without compromising his pre-judged blinkered view.
Note what has been said by all of us. We acept that any cause, including negligence, is possible.
We simply demand that, in accordance with the rules in force at the time, that such negligence needs to be proven with no doubt whatsoever .
You can't do it, and neither could their airships.
Wratten and Day had a vested interest in placing the blame on others, as it diverted attention from their own part in this sorry saga.
What is your agenda, JP?
I have grown rather weary of Mr Purdey's politician-like ability to ignore the question put to him if it is difficult to answer without compromising his pre-judged blinkered view.
Note what has been said by all of us. We acept that any cause, including negligence, is possible.
We simply demand that, in accordance with the rules in force at the time, that such negligence needs to be proven with no doubt whatsoever .
You can't do it, and neither could their airships.
Wratten and Day had a vested interest in placing the blame on others, as it diverted attention from their own part in this sorry saga.
What is your agenda, JP?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
Perhaps the reason that people give less credence to the evidence of Mr Holbrook is that the evidence he gave to the FAI (and the HOL Commitee) was markedly different to that he gave to the BOI in the immediate aftermath of the Accident. Both accounts were given on oath.
Of course, by the time the FAI sat the BOI (which had been given to Next of Kin on an "In Confidence" basis) had been leaked to the Press.
I undestand the he stated that he changed his opinion of the height and speed of the Chinook after watching Sea King's on approach at Prestwick some months later.
Perhaps the reason that people give less credence to the evidence of Mr Holbrook is that the evidence he gave to the FAI (and the HOL Commitee) was markedly different to that he gave to the BOI in the immediate aftermath of the Accident. Both accounts were given on oath.
Of course, by the time the FAI sat the BOI (which had been given to Next of Kin on an "In Confidence" basis) had been leaked to the Press.
I undestand the he stated that he changed his opinion of the height and speed of the Chinook after watching Sea King's on approach at Prestwick some months later.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kilo 52
It still doesn't prove beyond any doubt.
That is the test whether you like it or not.
Like Mr Purdey, you do not know what went on that night. You may think you know, You may well be near the truth but you, like us all, don't have proof positive.
The only ones who might have known what really was happening to the aircraft perished that night.
It still doesn't prove beyond any doubt.
That is the test whether you like it or not.
Like Mr Purdey, you do not know what went on that night. You may think you know, You may well be near the truth but you, like us all, don't have proof positive.
The only ones who might have known what really was happening to the aircraft perished that night.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Slj: I am familiar with the Select Committee findings, and the members of it made clear that they were not qualified to determine the cause of the accident. What they did do, however, was give a very strange definition of negligence (Arkroyal, call this arrogance if you like, but even distinguished Law Lords can get it badly wrong. Try the AP definition that I quoted earlier).
Kilo52, quite right. I'm sure the yachtsman did his best, but he certainly contradicted himself on several points.
Arkroyal: there is none so blind as he who will not see. Please now be kind enough to answer or accept the eight facts I offered in an earlier contribution: I maintain that those facts do indeed stand without any doubt whatsoever, and if you have any other explanation or facts, or doubts, then please let us know. [B]without any doubt whatsoever[/B
Meanwhile, I have had my say, and, although I am no politician - as Arkroyal might think, I do have a great deal of experience of flying and of Service Bs of I (I was the subject of two!). Regards... JOHN
Sorry: I must have selected the wrong face; I didn't of course mean a tounge out picture. Apologies. John
Kilo52, quite right. I'm sure the yachtsman did his best, but he certainly contradicted himself on several points.
Arkroyal: there is none so blind as he who will not see. Please now be kind enough to answer or accept the eight facts I offered in an earlier contribution: I maintain that those facts do indeed stand without any doubt whatsoever, and if you have any other explanation or facts, or doubts, then please let us know. [B]without any doubt whatsoever[/B
Meanwhile, I have had my say, and, although I am no politician - as Arkroyal might think, I do have a great deal of experience of flying and of Service Bs of I (I was the subject of two!). Regards... JOHN
Sorry: I must have selected the wrong face; I didn't of course mean a tounge out picture. Apologies. John
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey - you say "Please now be kind enough to answer or accept the eight facts I offered in an earlier contribution: I maintain that those facts do indeed stand without any doubt whatsoever"
Your "facts" have already been examined by Brian Dixon, and I (along with other) have previously made the same points to you. Each time you have failed to respond. Let's go through your list of "facts" from your posting of 3rd Nov one more time, remembering that you are trying to PROVE negligence with no doubt:
1. As it approached waypoint change, a/c was under control (no-one has challenged this)
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
2. It was at low level (Yachtsman)
This is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence. Incidentally, I note that you accept the yachtsman's testimony of the height of the aircraft (which suits your case) but not the speed (which does not).
3. Speed was around 150 kts ( Aldergrove radar fix and time of impact data)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on instantaneous fixes which do not indicate the speed at any other point. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence.
4. Weather at Mull was IMC (lighthouse keeper said 15-20 yds, ten local witnesses said weather generally foggy and very bad)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on the weather on the Mull and not where the aircraft was. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
5. A/c was more than 500 yds right of intended track (positions of lighthouse and impact point) .
This assumes that the crew deliberately went off track. Thus it is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
6. Ht of lighthouse about 320 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
7. Ht of terrain at impact 810 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
8. Thus, in v poor vis the crew were suddenly confronted by terrain more than 500 ft higher than anticipated.
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
9. They raised the nose 30 deg and started turn port (AIB), but far too late.
This is an ASSUMPTION - the AAIB report indicates what happened, not how. You assume that "they" were in control. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
Your definition of negligence (from an earlier post) is this: "The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable would person do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently"
This seems like a reasonable definition (and not disimilar to the Select Committee definition). However, I say again - where are your FACTS (not the assumptions beloved of the two Air Marshals) which prove this?
You also say "I'm sure the yachtsman did his best, but he certainly contradicted himself on several points." If Mr Holbrook's request that the RAF provide photos of a Chinook from different heights to allow him to indicate what he saw had been met at the time perhaps he would have been able to more clear. The fact is that the last man to see the aircraft maintains that the speed was substantially less than the 150kts you contend - without evidence to the contrary you cannot discount this.
You finish thus "there is none so blind as he who will not see"
Indeed so Mr Purdey. I (and many others) await your response to these points in the hope that you have something to contribute to the debate rather than ignoring others and restating your case yet again.
Remember - you have to PROVE gross negligence, we do not have to DISPROVE it! To prove it you need facts, and in my view you have none which support your case.
Your "facts" have already been examined by Brian Dixon, and I (along with other) have previously made the same points to you. Each time you have failed to respond. Let's go through your list of "facts" from your posting of 3rd Nov one more time, remembering that you are trying to PROVE negligence with no doubt:
1. As it approached waypoint change, a/c was under control (no-one has challenged this)
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
2. It was at low level (Yachtsman)
This is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence. Incidentally, I note that you accept the yachtsman's testimony of the height of the aircraft (which suits your case) but not the speed (which does not).
3. Speed was around 150 kts ( Aldergrove radar fix and time of impact data)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on instantaneous fixes which do not indicate the speed at any other point. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence.
4. Weather at Mull was IMC (lighthouse keeper said 15-20 yds, ten local witnesses said weather generally foggy and very bad)
This is an ASSUMPTION based on the weather on the Mull and not where the aircraft was. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
5. A/c was more than 500 yds right of intended track (positions of lighthouse and impact point) .
This assumes that the crew deliberately went off track. Thus it is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
6. Ht of lighthouse about 320 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
7. Ht of terrain at impact 810 ft.
This is a fact. It is IRRELEVANT as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
8. Thus, in v poor vis the crew were suddenly confronted by terrain more than 500 ft higher than anticipated.
This is an ASSUMPTION. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
9. They raised the nose 30 deg and started turn port (AIB), but far too late.
This is an ASSUMPTION - the AAIB report indicates what happened, not how. You assume that "they" were in control. As such it is irrelevant as it does not contribute to proving gross negligence
Your definition of negligence (from an earlier post) is this: "The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable would person do; or the doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently"
This seems like a reasonable definition (and not disimilar to the Select Committee definition). However, I say again - where are your FACTS (not the assumptions beloved of the two Air Marshals) which prove this?
You also say "I'm sure the yachtsman did his best, but he certainly contradicted himself on several points." If Mr Holbrook's request that the RAF provide photos of a Chinook from different heights to allow him to indicate what he saw had been met at the time perhaps he would have been able to more clear. The fact is that the last man to see the aircraft maintains that the speed was substantially less than the 150kts you contend - without evidence to the contrary you cannot discount this.
You finish thus "there is none so blind as he who will not see"
Indeed so Mr Purdey. I (and many others) await your response to these points in the hope that you have something to contribute to the debate rather than ignoring others and restating your case yet again.
Remember - you have to PROVE gross negligence, we do not have to DISPROVE it! To prove it you need facts, and in my view you have none which support your case.