Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Chocks wahay, Many thanks for the reply. Just one substantive point; it was not my definition of negligence, but that of MOD (Air) at the time.
I really cannot weary our contributers by repeating yet again what I have asserted in my earlier postings. Everyone as far as I know has accepted that, because the pilots needed to make three manual selections in order to change to the next waypoint at waypoint change, and they did so, they must have been in control of the aircraft.
Just tell me this, and a straight answer would be helpful: Did the crew have, or have not have , the choice at waypoint change between 1. carrying on towards high ground covered in bad visibility, or 2. turning left around the coast, or 3. climbing to fly over it (either cruise climb or to safety altitude)?
No amount of speculation can alter the fact that they made the wrong decision. Just by the way, given that choice, what would you have done?
If the crew did not have that choice, then are you really saying that the aircraft was out of control at waypoint change, locked into a mode that the crew could not affect? Best regards. John
I really cannot weary our contributers by repeating yet again what I have asserted in my earlier postings. Everyone as far as I know has accepted that, because the pilots needed to make three manual selections in order to change to the next waypoint at waypoint change, and they did so, they must have been in control of the aircraft.
Just tell me this, and a straight answer would be helpful: Did the crew have, or have not have , the choice at waypoint change between 1. carrying on towards high ground covered in bad visibility, or 2. turning left around the coast, or 3. climbing to fly over it (either cruise climb or to safety altitude)?
No amount of speculation can alter the fact that they made the wrong decision. Just by the way, given that choice, what would you have done?
If the crew did not have that choice, then are you really saying that the aircraft was out of control at waypoint change, locked into a mode that the crew could not affect? Best regards. John
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
I think I am right in saying that the Select Committee flew on a Chinook Mk2 sortie following the ASSUMED flight path of ZD576, during which it was shown that, as if by magic, the Chinook was capable of turning away from the threat well beyond ‘waypoint change’. As you have chosen this to be the crux of your findings could you please explain why both Day and Wratton claim that this was the point at which ZD576’s crew were grossly negligent?
I have read your posts and respect both the quality and quantity of your aeronautical experience however, I wonder how much rotary experience you have and what brings you to the same flawed assumption of “negligence at ‘waypoint change’” as the airships?
I think I am right in saying that the Select Committee flew on a Chinook Mk2 sortie following the ASSUMED flight path of ZD576, during which it was shown that, as if by magic, the Chinook was capable of turning away from the threat well beyond ‘waypoint change’. As you have chosen this to be the crux of your findings could you please explain why both Day and Wratton claim that this was the point at which ZD576’s crew were grossly negligent?
I have read your posts and respect both the quality and quantity of your aeronautical experience however, I wonder how much rotary experience you have and what brings you to the same flawed assumption of “negligence at ‘waypoint change’” as the airships?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey.
You stated: "but even distinguished Law Lords can get it badly wrong. Try the AP definition that I quoted earlier".
Please accept the following from someone with a fair amount of experience in Law.
Do you really accept that the AP definition of negligence holds more authority than that of the Law Lords? Do you honestly believe after a life at the bar that these 3 distinguished legal practitioners would, contemporaneously, have such an aberration of mind to incorrectly define such a central issue?
You have intimated that the AP definition holds more weight than that given by their Lordships. Please indulge me for a moment while i describe the production process of the AP.
The legal definition of negligence is of a stratiform nature. DLS are consulted to provide definitions for AP's. The problems with DLS are well known and deserve a thread of their own; very few people being "jack of all trades master of none". Suffice to say that, professionally, DLS are not highly regarded.
The definition quoted in the AP is, incidentally, almost directly copied from the laymans book on Tort (nutshells for those in the know). For your information the AP quote could be described as the O level definition whereas the Law Lords definition is Post -Graduate. Consequently one must assume that this was not clear to you. Merely because you cannot comprehend does not make it wrong.
It is indeed arrogant to claim superior knowledge without foundation. You argue eloquently and with conviction yet your arguments lack credibility; the subject of this post being proof positive
You stated: "but even distinguished Law Lords can get it badly wrong. Try the AP definition that I quoted earlier".
Please accept the following from someone with a fair amount of experience in Law.
Do you really accept that the AP definition of negligence holds more authority than that of the Law Lords? Do you honestly believe after a life at the bar that these 3 distinguished legal practitioners would, contemporaneously, have such an aberration of mind to incorrectly define such a central issue?
You have intimated that the AP definition holds more weight than that given by their Lordships. Please indulge me for a moment while i describe the production process of the AP.
The legal definition of negligence is of a stratiform nature. DLS are consulted to provide definitions for AP's. The problems with DLS are well known and deserve a thread of their own; very few people being "jack of all trades master of none". Suffice to say that, professionally, DLS are not highly regarded.
The definition quoted in the AP is, incidentally, almost directly copied from the laymans book on Tort (nutshells for those in the know). For your information the AP quote could be described as the O level definition whereas the Law Lords definition is Post -Graduate. Consequently one must assume that this was not clear to you. Merely because you cannot comprehend does not make it wrong.
It is indeed arrogant to claim superior knowledge without foundation. You argue eloquently and with conviction yet your arguments lack credibility; the subject of this post being proof positive
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Uncle Peter: Many thanks for your eurudite exposition, but I draw your attention again to their Lordships' opinion which (para 147 of their Report, and in the key paragraph) said that '"The question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event" In other words, they knew that what they were doing would cause them to crash. Do you really accept that? Come off it!
I say again that this is a definition of recklessness, or even of suicidal intent rather than one of negligence.
M134. Not at all clear what you mean by "turning as if by magic".
Chocks Wayhay. What do you mean, 'we do not know what the weather was where the aircraft was'? I mean, how many witnesses on the spot do you need beyond ten to tell you that the weather up there was very bad and in fog? Either all ten were wrong, or the aircraft was being flown along in VMC, or it was on some kind of auto-pilot. Which do we prefer?
Fellas, I don't like the conclusion any more than the rest of you; but I think you should, however reluctantly, face the facts. And if you can offer any other explanation than the one I have now given several times, then there really is no point in continuing with these exchanges.
With warm good wishes, and in great sadness as I contemplate the terrible loss of all these good people, especially by the way, the helpless passengers in the back of the Chinook, Regards. John Purdey
I say again that this is a definition of recklessness, or even of suicidal intent rather than one of negligence.
M134. Not at all clear what you mean by "turning as if by magic".
Chocks Wayhay. What do you mean, 'we do not know what the weather was where the aircraft was'? I mean, how many witnesses on the spot do you need beyond ten to tell you that the weather up there was very bad and in fog? Either all ten were wrong, or the aircraft was being flown along in VMC, or it was on some kind of auto-pilot. Which do we prefer?
Fellas, I don't like the conclusion any more than the rest of you; but I think you should, however reluctantly, face the facts. And if you can offer any other explanation than the one I have now given several times, then there really is no point in continuing with these exchanges.
With warm good wishes, and in great sadness as I contemplate the terrible loss of all these good people, especially by the way, the helpless passengers in the back of the Chinook, Regards. John Purdey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
I apologise, my sarcasm was, as sarcasm is, cheap.
My point is that the Select Committee were shown that ZD576 could have avoided the hillside long after ‘waypoint change'. I do not wish to waste my time debating how long that would be, before you grasp at yet another straw.
As you also seem to rely heavily on the weather conditions at ‘waypoint change’ could you please provide the statements of the numerous witnesses whom you think could predict the extent of the cloud in which they stood? I’m sure there would be an opening for them in every airfield I have flown out of.
I almost forgot to mention, Mr Purdey, this is not a matter of negligence but GROSS negligence.
I apologise, my sarcasm was, as sarcasm is, cheap.
My point is that the Select Committee were shown that ZD576 could have avoided the hillside long after ‘waypoint change'. I do not wish to waste my time debating how long that would be, before you grasp at yet another straw.
As you also seem to rely heavily on the weather conditions at ‘waypoint change’ could you please provide the statements of the numerous witnesses whom you think could predict the extent of the cloud in which they stood? I’m sure there would be an opening for them in every airfield I have flown out of.
I almost forgot to mention, Mr Purdey, this is not a matter of negligence but GROSS negligence.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
M134, Thanks, but no need for apologies; we are tryimg to have a civilised discussion here. As to grasping at straws, of course the crew could have turned after waypoint change. But, and as I have tried so many times to explain, I am most firmly convinced that because they were more than 500 yards to the right of where they thought they were ( PLAIN FACT: misplotted waypoint plus a certain amount of nav system error), they flew straight on. So the terrain ahead of them was about 500 ft higher then they expected. Why can so many contributers not accept this clear explanation for what went wrong? Please give me another explanation, before we go round these bouys yet again.
I don't like it either, but I think back to the many times others have made a similar mistake, and the (far too many) number of close shaves I have had myself, and I most sadly have always concluded that these splendid guys did what so many have done before them.
Yours in sadness,,, JOHN PURDEY
I don't like it either, but I think back to the many times others have made a similar mistake, and the (far too many) number of close shaves I have had myself, and I most sadly have always concluded that these splendid guys did what so many have done before them.
Yours in sadness,,, JOHN PURDEY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey in reply to Uncle peter you say :
"Uncle Peter: Many thanks for your eurudite exposition, but I draw your attention again to their Lordships' opinion which (para 147 of their Report, and in the key paragraph) said that '"The question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event" In other words, they knew that what they were doing would cause them to crash. Do you really accept that? Come off it!
I say again that this is a definition of recklessness, or even of suicidal intent rather than one of negligence."
Whilst you have obvious understanding of aviation matters you don't have a similar level of understanding of legal matters. Negligence cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Whether you accept the definition is neither here no there. That is it.
However, your reading of para 147 and your comments put your views on this matter into perpsective.
It is a little arrogant even to assume that the Select Commoitee would have the definition of negligence wrong.
One final comment. if the Select Committee ot the definition wrong wouldn't one of the government spokespersons have picked this up?
"Uncle Peter: Many thanks for your eurudite exposition, but I draw your attention again to their Lordships' opinion which (para 147 of their Report, and in the key paragraph) said that '"The question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have forseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event" In other words, they knew that what they were doing would cause them to crash. Do you really accept that? Come off it!
I say again that this is a definition of recklessness, or even of suicidal intent rather than one of negligence."
Whilst you have obvious understanding of aviation matters you don't have a similar level of understanding of legal matters. Negligence cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Whether you accept the definition is neither here no there. That is it.
However, your reading of para 147 and your comments put your views on this matter into perpsective.
It is a little arrogant even to assume that the Select Commoitee would have the definition of negligence wrong.
One final comment. if the Select Committee ot the definition wrong wouldn't one of the government spokespersons have picked this up?
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Slj, Many thanks. I hear that the Govt consulted emminent counsel in framing its response, and the whole govt response sets out to contradict the HofL report. Is all of that arrogance too?
Meanwhile, my delayed transport beckons, so au revoir and thanks for stimulating discussion. Regards. John Purdey
Meanwhile, my delayed transport beckons, so au revoir and thanks for stimulating discussion. Regards. John Purdey
Just a numbered other
JP
You continue to ignore the central and crucial point whilst confusing your conjecture and extrapolations with fact.
It is not for anyone to theorise upon what might have happened. Such actions simply further muddy the water. It is for their airships to show how they can prove to the required standard that the crew were negligent to a gross degree. The House of lords has decided that they have failed in that duty.
I hate theorising, but try this for size. Trundleing along, happily VMC below a lowering cloudbase, autopilot in, approaching way point and visual with mull. Change waypoint in TANS, disconnect autopilot and find controls restricted/UCCM/engine runaway/other warning/distraction.
None of these scenarios can be proven to have happened, but that is of no import whatsoever.
It is for the BofI to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that no such problem occured and that Jon and Rick simply flew on with total disregard for their safety. The BofI could not. Wratten and Day overturned their finding.
If I sound like a stuch record, then so be it until you answer the questions that require answering. I don't mean your view of what you think happened. I mean conclusive proof that you are right.
Can't do it? I thought not. Now. Off to watch the HoL debate on Parliament#.
You continue to ignore the central and crucial point whilst confusing your conjecture and extrapolations with fact.
It is not for anyone to theorise upon what might have happened. Such actions simply further muddy the water. It is for their airships to show how they can prove to the required standard that the crew were negligent to a gross degree. The House of lords has decided that they have failed in that duty.
I hate theorising, but try this for size. Trundleing along, happily VMC below a lowering cloudbase, autopilot in, approaching way point and visual with mull. Change waypoint in TANS, disconnect autopilot and find controls restricted/UCCM/engine runaway/other warning/distraction.
None of these scenarios can be proven to have happened, but that is of no import whatsoever.
It is for the BofI to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that no such problem occured and that Jon and Rick simply flew on with total disregard for their safety. The BofI could not. Wratten and Day overturned their finding.
If I sound like a stuch record, then so be it until you answer the questions that require answering. I don't mean your view of what you think happened. I mean conclusive proof that you are right.
Can't do it? I thought not. Now. Off to watch the HoL debate on Parliament#.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
You ask in your last posting is the government response arrogance?
Of course it is.
Most of the speakers supporting their airships in the Lords debate have concentrated on the narrow "they should not have ben there" tack. No real attempt to consider why they were there? Or whether there were other possible causes.
Some good stuff from Lords Chalfont, Tombs, Brennan etc.
You ask in your last posting is the government response arrogance?
Of course it is.
Most of the speakers supporting their airships in the Lords debate have concentrated on the narrow "they should not have ben there" tack. No real attempt to consider why they were there? Or whether there were other possible causes.
Some good stuff from Lords Chalfont, Tombs, Brennan etc.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is *technically* correct.
However, take a close look at those voting "for the RAF" and it reveals a strange concoction of Labour Whips, Ministers and those who don't normally take such a close interest in defence, like Lord Melvyn Fcuking Bragg of Thames TV!!
It was obviously whipped. Of the 65 voting "for the RAF" a quick run down gives us (and I've added this up quickly so apologies for inaccuracies):
19 Ministers or Labour Whips
38 assorted Labour Peers
3 not so "Great and Good" Craig, Guthrie, Vincent
2 Lib Dems
2 Tories
1 Unionist
So, not so much of a victory after all.
However, take a close look at those voting "for the RAF" and it reveals a strange concoction of Labour Whips, Ministers and those who don't normally take such a close interest in defence, like Lord Melvyn Fcuking Bragg of Thames TV!!
It was obviously whipped. Of the 65 voting "for the RAF" a quick run down gives us (and I've added this up quickly so apologies for inaccuracies):
19 Ministers or Labour Whips
38 assorted Labour Peers
3 not so "Great and Good" Craig, Guthrie, Vincent
2 Lib Dems
2 Tories
1 Unionist
So, not so much of a victory after all.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, and all the others who have worked so diligently to clear the crew's reputations.
Please accept my condolences on the disappointment you must be feeling as a result of the dismal conclusion reached in the House of Lords Debate.
This result must still besmirch the reputation of Military Justice, and remains a blot on the escutcheon of the MoD.
Best wishes for your future endeavours.
HectorusRex
Please accept my condolences on the disappointment you must be feeling as a result of the dismal conclusion reached in the House of Lords Debate.
This result must still besmirch the reputation of Military Justice, and remains a blot on the escutcheon of the MoD.
Best wishes for your future endeavours.
HectorusRex
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad news. I try hard to stay realistic and put this affair down to the arrogance of two senior officers however I sometimes wonder who’s protecting who?
Can anyone remember the full details of the 1987 Falklands crash? I have no reason to believe there is any connection between the two crashes other than the lack of finding any proof positive of technical malfunction in either case.
I believe there were witnesses to the Falklands crash but I have no means of finding the original BoI ‘flimsies’.
Can anyone remember the full details of the 1987 Falklands crash? I have no reason to believe there is any connection between the two crashes other than the lack of finding any proof positive of technical malfunction in either case.
I believe there were witnesses to the Falklands crash but I have no means of finding the original BoI ‘flimsies’.
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 HectorusRex, thank you for your kind comments and thank you everyone for your support.
Not overly suprising, bearing in mind the recent comment to Lord Chalfont by Mr Hoon ("Two can play at that game").
It's fair to say that I have mixed emotions at the moment - anger, frustration, disappointment, a bit more anger, sadness not only for my friends and their families but also for the reputation of such a fine Service, and a few more emotions as well. Did I mention anger?
However, I also have immense pride for the conduct of the campaign, the friends I have made and the justness of the cause. The MoD will never take that away!
I hold my head high, Mr Hoon. Can you?
It's only my interpretation, but the House voted only that they would not accept the Report. They did not vote that the pilots were negligent.
As far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any large ladies singing so I'm still ready to continue to support Rick, Jon and their families. As soon as the campaign decides upon the next strategy I will, of course, let you know.
Thank you all so much for your support.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Not overly suprising, bearing in mind the recent comment to Lord Chalfont by Mr Hoon ("Two can play at that game").
It's fair to say that I have mixed emotions at the moment - anger, frustration, disappointment, a bit more anger, sadness not only for my friends and their families but also for the reputation of such a fine Service, and a few more emotions as well. Did I mention anger?
However, I also have immense pride for the conduct of the campaign, the friends I have made and the justness of the cause. The MoD will never take that away!
I hold my head high, Mr Hoon. Can you?
It's only my interpretation, but the House voted only that they would not accept the Report. They did not vote that the pilots were negligent.
As far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any large ladies singing so I'm still ready to continue to support Rick, Jon and their families. As soon as the campaign decides upon the next strategy I will, of course, let you know.
Thank you all so much for your support.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 68
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sad day indeed for, the families, for military justice (or the lack thereof) and the reputation of the RAF.
The road may be long and the road may be hard but I hope you will feel it worth continuing with your campaign because there have been a number of cases taken to the European court where the government has been forced to climb down.
I remember John Day as a young pilot fresh out of university. It doesn't look as if he has changed his character one iota.
The road may be long and the road may be hard but I hope you will feel it worth continuing with your campaign because there have been a number of cases taken to the European court where the government has been forced to climb down.
I remember John Day as a young pilot fresh out of university. It doesn't look as if he has changed his character one iota.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with TL Thou, a pretty well packed government vote. I found "Lord" Glenarthur's comments particularly tedious, self-serving and arrogant. Comments from previous CDS types were disappointing but probably to be expected.
What did depress me- can't remember who said it- was a comment that accidents had to be avoided and therefore {by implication} that there was an element of "pour encourager les autres"
I believe it was Talleyrand who said of the Bourbons that "they learned nothing and they forgot nothing".Seems to apply to MoD.
Sad day, looking forward to the next stage in due course.
What did depress me- can't remember who said it- was a comment that accidents had to be avoided and therefore {by implication} that there was an element of "pour encourager les autres"
I believe it was Talleyrand who said of the Bourbons that "they learned nothing and they forgot nothing".Seems to apply to MoD.
Sad day, looking forward to the next stage in due course.
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
Yetti - All options are currently being explored. Don't worry, you haven't heard the last of the campaign just yet!
Tombola - See above! John Day has a character
Chippy - I agree. The Government has sunk to a new low by issuing a whip on an issue of conscience. Hope the new job is going well too.
The following link is taken from a local news site near to Mike Tapper:
News Link
Anyone hear a fat lady singing? Good me neither.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Tombola - See above! John Day has a character
Chippy - I agree. The Government has sunk to a new low by issuing a whip on an issue of conscience. Hope the new job is going well too.
The following link is taken from a local news site near to Mike Tapper:
News Link
Anyone hear a fat lady singing? Good me neither.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook