Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
8.15from Odium
I seem unable to bring up the letter to which you refer, but I am happy to accept what you say. In answer to your question ie:
"((2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe".
What did OC RWTS do about it? The allegation was that AOC, CinC and even CAS, and their staffs, knew that the aircraft was not fit, and then insisted that it be flown, and when this machine crashed, they (to quote another contributer) "stitched up the pilots".
Do you believe that?
Did RWTS follow up their unease, and if not then why not? And, if RWTS did not follow up, then I do not see that we are any further forward, even if you believe (and as you know I do not so believe), that the crash was caused by some kind of technical failure rather than gross negligence by the crew
I hope my reply will not provoke yet another repetition of the familiar arguments!
With all good wishes, and thankyou for your courteous post JP
I seem unable to bring up the letter to which you refer, but I am happy to accept what you say. In answer to your question ie:
"((2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe".
What did OC RWTS do about it? The allegation was that AOC, CinC and even CAS, and their staffs, knew that the aircraft was not fit, and then insisted that it be flown, and when this machine crashed, they (to quote another contributer) "stitched up the pilots".
Do you believe that?
Did RWTS follow up their unease, and if not then why not? And, if RWTS did not follow up, then I do not see that we are any further forward, even if you believe (and as you know I do not so believe), that the crash was caused by some kind of technical failure rather than gross negligence by the crew
I hope my reply will not provoke yet another repetition of the familiar arguments!
With all good wishes, and thankyou for your courteous post JP
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP, I think the RWTS para 7 summary says it all:
With my ex-RAF staff officer hat on, I'm not sure RWTS had anything else they could do; they have made a very strongly and direct statement and not the typical read-between-the-lines staff officer type message. If you are wondering about their post-accident actions, then that is indeed a different question and well worth pursuing, regardless of the perceived cause of the crash.
As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions in paragraph 6 are satisfied.
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 13th Jul 2009 at 20:58.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
Re your #5304 and subsequent Posts. It is not the case that JP (myself or anyone else) has to produce new evidence to "PROVE" that the finding of the BOI was correct. If, in UK, a criminal case goes to the Court Of Appeal; the Prosecution does not have to produce new evidence to maintain the Guilty verdict. It is up to the Appellant (and that persons Advocates) to produce new evidence that justifies overturning the original verdict in the eyes of the court. The same applies in Civil cases.
Re your #5304 and subsequent Posts. It is not the case that JP (myself or anyone else) has to produce new evidence to "PROVE" that the finding of the BOI was correct. If, in UK, a criminal case goes to the Court Of Appeal; the Prosecution does not have to produce new evidence to maintain the Guilty verdict. It is up to the Appellant (and that persons Advocates) to produce new evidence that justifies overturning the original verdict in the eyes of the court. The same applies in Civil cases.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the case that JP (myself or anyone else) has to produce new evidence to "PROVE" that the finding of the BOI was correct. If, in UK, a criminal case goes to the Court Of Appeal; the Prosecution does not have to produce new evidence to maintain the Guilty verdict. It is up to the Appellant (and that persons Advocates) to produce new evidence that justifies overturning the original verdict in the eyes of the court. The same applies in Civil cases.
1) If there has been a miscarriage of justice, and/or there was relevant evidence which was either ignored or withheld, that surely cannot be the case.
2) This is not a criminal, civil or military court. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a discussion forum.
With the latter point in mind, none of us are not bound by these conventions. In particular, we are discussing the merits of the original verdict, and the means by which it was achieved. We can, and should, consider all the evidence available, and indeed informed speculation
With the former point in mind, I think a number of us believe this is the case.
Kind regards,
TN
It is not the findings of the members sitting on the BOI that some posters have a problem with.
It is the overruling of their findings, contrary to the rules in place, as approved by the Air Force Board, that has caused this protracted discussion.
The fact that every independant analysis of the evidence has disagreed with the action of the Reviewing Officers tends to support those who object to the RO's action.
It is the overruling of their findings, contrary to the rules in place, as approved by the Air Force Board, that has caused this protracted discussion.
The fact that every independant analysis of the evidence has disagreed with the action of the Reviewing Officers tends to support those who object to the RO's action.
cazatou
Thank you for replying (effectively on behalf of John Purdey
).
Without wishing to sound like a broken record, IMHO, if this had been a case heard in the law courts, then there are grounds for it to be declared a mis-trial in that the rules / regulations / procedures / protocol (call them what you like) in force at the time were not followed. However, it was not in a court of law but that does not change the fact that the BoI was, IMHO, flawed, at the very least, proceduraly. My point throughout the few posts I have made on this sad topic is that I cannot see any evidence (only opinion) to justify the BoI outcome and hence my request for it to be highlighted clearly to me.
Without wishing to get flamed, whilst I think the faults in airworthiness etc being highlighted in this (and other accidents) by the likes of Chug, tuc, Brian, nigegilb, DV, TD et al is laudable, my (perhaps selfish) best outcome in this case would be to get the Gross Neg charges removed. NPD would satisfy the majority of posters on this thread I am sure. With that battle won focus could then turn to the wider war of airworthiness etc.
Finally, whilst I can't remember the exact details, IIRC it was not long after the outcome of this board that the procedures were changed again whereby blame would no longer be attributed. Timing, it seems, is sadly everything.
Thank you for replying (effectively on behalf of John Purdey
).Without wishing to sound like a broken record, IMHO, if this had been a case heard in the law courts, then there are grounds for it to be declared a mis-trial in that the rules / regulations / procedures / protocol (call them what you like) in force at the time were not followed. However, it was not in a court of law but that does not change the fact that the BoI was, IMHO, flawed, at the very least, proceduraly. My point throughout the few posts I have made on this sad topic is that I cannot see any evidence (only opinion) to justify the BoI outcome and hence my request for it to be highlighted clearly to me.
Without wishing to get flamed, whilst I think the faults in airworthiness etc being highlighted in this (and other accidents) by the likes of Chug, tuc, Brian, nigegilb, DV, TD et al is laudable, my (perhaps selfish) best outcome in this case would be to get the Gross Neg charges removed. NPD would satisfy the majority of posters on this thread I am sure. With that battle won focus could then turn to the wider war of airworthiness etc.
Finally, whilst I can't remember the exact details, IIRC it was not long after the outcome of this board that the procedures were changed again whereby blame would no longer be attributed. Timing, it seems, is sadly everything.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
Your 5345
Thank you for your comments. If JP does not always respond promptly, try to remember that he was operating Canberras at the time of Her Majesties Coronation. I, on the other hand, am a mere youngster as I did not join the RAF until the day after Sir Winston Churchill died.
You must remember that the BOI was conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures current at the time. Those rules have, I am given to understand, been revised and a BOI is no longer required to pronounce on negligence. That had not happened in 1994 and it was a requirement for the BOI to pronounce on negligence. In this context the BOI consists of the Investigating Board and the Reviewing Officers; who are not bound by the opinions that the Investigating Board put forward.
To put this into context ( I have mentioned this before but it will do no harm to repeat it); there was another BOI in progress at the time into the crash of a Tornado at the NATO Range, Decimomannu. A Tornado suffered an explosion and titanium fire in one engine which resulted in the loss of the aircraft. The Investigating Board found the crew negligent as they had not carried out the Engine Fire Drill. What they neglected to consider was that the initial explosion had blown off the engine bay doors of that engine; this removed the major part of the Fire Warning detection system and ensured that if the engine fire extinguisher was fired then the extinguishant would immediately dissipate to atmosphere. The crew, therefore, had no indication of a fire until the aircraft they had requested to carry out a visual inspection got them in sight and ordered them to "Get Out - Get Out".
The AOC and AOCinC rejected the findings of the BOI.
Oddly enough, I have never heard anyone complain about the Reviewing Officers "overturning the findings of a properly constituted BOI" in respect of that accident.
Your 5345
Thank you for your comments. If JP does not always respond promptly, try to remember that he was operating Canberras at the time of Her Majesties Coronation. I, on the other hand, am a mere youngster as I did not join the RAF until the day after Sir Winston Churchill died.
You must remember that the BOI was conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures current at the time. Those rules have, I am given to understand, been revised and a BOI is no longer required to pronounce on negligence. That had not happened in 1994 and it was a requirement for the BOI to pronounce on negligence. In this context the BOI consists of the Investigating Board and the Reviewing Officers; who are not bound by the opinions that the Investigating Board put forward.
To put this into context ( I have mentioned this before but it will do no harm to repeat it); there was another BOI in progress at the time into the crash of a Tornado at the NATO Range, Decimomannu. A Tornado suffered an explosion and titanium fire in one engine which resulted in the loss of the aircraft. The Investigating Board found the crew negligent as they had not carried out the Engine Fire Drill. What they neglected to consider was that the initial explosion had blown off the engine bay doors of that engine; this removed the major part of the Fire Warning detection system and ensured that if the engine fire extinguisher was fired then the extinguishant would immediately dissipate to atmosphere. The crew, therefore, had no indication of a fire until the aircraft they had requested to carry out a visual inspection got them in sight and ordered them to "Get Out - Get Out".
The AOC and AOCinC rejected the findings of the BOI.
Oddly enough, I have never heard anyone complain about the Reviewing Officers "overturning the findings of a properly constituted BOI" in respect of that accident.
Of course not, since in the Phantom case there was doubt, therefore the BOI were incorrect (although they may not have been made aware of the evidence) and the ROs found in accordance with the AP and the Air Force Act.
In the case under discussion, the ROs ignored the requirements, and therfore did not comply with their legal requirements.
In the case under discussion, the ROs ignored the requirements, and therfore did not comply with their legal requirements.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk. I did not reply because if you had spooled back to the many endless discussions along those lines, you would have found the answer you were looking for. (And I am not as old as Caz seems to think!).
JP
JP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
I've never said I wasn't prone to hyperbole in certain circumstances. It is, after all, almost a requirement - judging by some of the contributions on this thread.
I've never said I wasn't prone to hyperbole in certain circumstances. It is, after all, almost a requirement - judging by some of the contributions on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitter 2
Your Post 5348
What Phantom was that?
Or have you just emphasised my point and pronounced a verdict on something that never happened because you did not read the statement correctly?
I await your reply with interest.
Your Post 5348
What Phantom was that?
Or have you just emphasised my point and pronounced a verdict on something that never happened because you did not read the statement correctly?
I await your reply with interest.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you all just want to play at lawyers then why don't you take the planning aspect on its own – no conspiracy needed – to show that fundamental information pertaining to this flight was either not known to or was improperly addressed by the original BOI and those who revised the findings? That should get a review.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules and procedures at the time
Would it be fair/reasonable to question the 'rules and procedures at the time', devised, audited, checked and utilised by the same organisation? It really is rather incestuous and something akin to the current MPs expenses farrago where the standard MP defence is "in accordance with the rules", quietly forgetting that these rules were approved by the same.
Maybe a better analogy is the execution of deserters during the First World War; those were the rules the military devised and implemented. I believe the government finally saw sense after 80 years or so.
I'm struggling to understand how the MOD could publicly reach a verdict that amounts to manslaughter on the basis of a flawed process. I wonder why the MOD changed their procedures so soon after the Mull crash?
Maybe a better analogy is the execution of deserters during the First World War; those were the rules the military devised and implemented. I believe the government finally saw sense after 80 years or so.
I'm struggling to understand how the MOD could publicly reach a verdict that amounts to manslaughter on the basis of a flawed process. I wonder why the MOD changed their procedures so soon after the Mull crash?
Apologies, Caz; I concatenated one incident involving a crew I knew with the other you were referring to.
However, I belive the principle still applies - Air rank does not confer the ability to change the rules.
However, I belive the principle still applies - Air rank does not confer the ability to change the rules.
Olive
I'm not convinced it was progress either as it could/would/did protect those who were truly negligent (and would have been proved so under the old system ....) but that's another thread all together. But had the new rules been in force in this case PPRuNe would be several thousand post lighter!
I'm sure I could get a dig by saying it's all down to protecting Human Rights.
Apologies to Brian for the thread drift!
I'm not convinced it was progress either as it could/would/did protect those who were truly negligent (and would have been proved so under the old system ....
) but that's another thread all together. But had the new rules been in force in this case PPRuNe would be several thousand post lighter!I'm sure I could get a dig by saying it's all down to protecting Human Rights.
Apologies to Brian for the thread drift!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
in reply to your #5339, I do not know what caused the Chinook to crash into the Mull, I feel that there is no overwhelming and conclusive evidence, hence why I believe the crew should be cleared.
You ask "What did OC RWTS do about it?". The letter he wrote is not to his mum! It is to higher authorities, surely you would agree that the question that should be asked is:
The questions we are both asking should surely have been considered in the investigation, however I do not believe they were (if you know differently could you please point me in the right direction). On this subject JP, do you think the investigation would be complete if an airworthiness audit had not been carried out?
Thanks for your time, 8-15
Finally SFFP: Thanks for the gen on Atlantic Cowboy, I thought he was a troll at the time.
in reply to your #5339, I do not know what caused the Chinook to crash into the Mull, I feel that there is no overwhelming and conclusive evidence, hence why I believe the crew should be cleared.
You ask "What did OC RWTS do about it?". The letter he wrote is not to his mum! It is to higher authorities, surely you would agree that the question that should be asked is:
What did those who received the letter do about it?
It would though be useful to know what OC RWTS meant by "associated political pressures", and who/where those pressures came from and what they were.The questions we are both asking should surely have been considered in the investigation, however I do not believe they were (if you know differently could you please point me in the right direction). On this subject JP, do you think the investigation would be complete if an airworthiness audit had not been carried out?
Thanks for your time, 8-15
Finally SFFP: Thanks for the gen on Atlantic Cowboy, I thought he was a troll at the time.