Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Just a numbered other
Funny how the number of votes far exceeded the number of Lords who remained interested enough to attend the debate.
Debate won hands down by Lord Chalfont's team, but vote rigged by a busload of whipped peers who hadn't even had the grace to listen to the argument.
Justice once again not done
Debate won hands down by Lord Chalfont's team, but vote rigged by a busload of whipped peers who hadn't even had the grace to listen to the argument.
Justice once again not done
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
Ark,
the bus arrived about ten minutes before the vote. I'm positive that integrity wasn't on the list of stops!
There was a clear division between those who knew what they were talking about and those following a rigid, inaccurate brief.
Disgraceful that any Government would choose to use the whip on an issue of conscience.
I feel sorry for our fine servicemen and women who still have to follow the whims of these spineless individuals.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
the bus arrived about ten minutes before the vote. I'm positive that integrity wasn't on the list of stops!
There was a clear division between those who knew what they were talking about and those following a rigid, inaccurate brief.
Disgraceful that any Government would choose to use the whip on an issue of conscience.
I feel sorry for our fine servicemen and women who still have to follow the whims of these spineless individuals.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have two questions that my old (custard filled so bear with me) mind can’t quite get into focus:
1. What were the findings of the 1987 (Feb?) BoI?
2. Has anyone approached M Rifkind to ascertain what his briefing (as Min Armed Forces) contained when he endorsed the AM’s findings and what has caused his subsequent U-turn on their findings?
Sorry if I’m going over old ground, dedicated readers will know I’ve already raised the question of the Falklands crash last week however nothing has been posted in reply and, like Brian, I just won’t let doubt be an excuse.
1. What were the findings of the 1987 (Feb?) BoI?
2. Has anyone approached M Rifkind to ascertain what his briefing (as Min Armed Forces) contained when he endorsed the AM’s findings and what has caused his subsequent U-turn on their findings?
Sorry if I’m going over old ground, dedicated readers will know I’ve already raised the question of the Falklands crash last week however nothing has been posted in reply and, like Brian, I just won’t let doubt be an excuse.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Valley
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF NEWS
As predicted, J Day loses CAS slot to Jock Stirrup (oh well, you can't have it all). Top analysis is that Ministers thought he carried too much Bad Baggage. There is a God, see
Roger
Roger
1. Brian,
I guess you already had him counted as an ally but were you aware that Lord ('on yer bike') Tebbit is quoted in the hot-off-the-press Guild News (..of Air Pilots and Air Navigators) thus? " ...felt they had been unjustly treated ...whatever had happened no one could say it was not pilot error, but (he questioned) condemning the pilots to a judgement that amounted to Manslaughter"
2. J. Purdey
Your post of 5/11 @21.57 defeats your own argument. A "mistake" of which I am, and continue to be, and you are - by your own admission - likewise 'guilty' is only rarely 'Negligence' and NEVER, by definition "Gross Negligence"
{Just to forestall pointless point-scoring: I'm still an active professional, firmly Airlines, however my background (as per two threads and about 1500 posts ago!) includes a period spent piloting flying machines of similar role and performance in the same Theatre and subsequently I transported some bereaved to various memorial events.}
I guess you already had him counted as an ally but were you aware that Lord ('on yer bike') Tebbit is quoted in the hot-off-the-press Guild News (..of Air Pilots and Air Navigators) thus? " ...felt they had been unjustly treated ...whatever had happened no one could say it was not pilot error, but (he questioned) condemning the pilots to a judgement that amounted to Manslaughter"
2. J. Purdey
Your post of 5/11 @21.57 defeats your own argument. A "mistake" of which I am, and continue to be, and you are - by your own admission - likewise 'guilty' is only rarely 'Negligence' and NEVER, by definition "Gross Negligence"
{Just to forestall pointless point-scoring: I'm still an active professional, firmly Airlines, however my background (as per two threads and about 1500 posts ago!) includes a period spent piloting flying machines of similar role and performance in the same Theatre and subsequently I transported some bereaved to various memorial events.}
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
M134 - I'll try to find the answer to Q1 for you and let you know. I believe that both fathers have spoken to Mr Rifkind about his views and about his briefing at the time. His u-turn was, again - I believe, due to the many areas of doubt that have surfaced over the years.
Roger_Ovair - Such sad news. Here it is on the RAF News Web site:
You are the weakest link - Goodbye!
twinboom - Thanks, yes the campaign is aware of Lord Tebbit's opinion, and yes, we do count him as a supporter.
The campaign will, of course, continue until justice is done.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Roger_Ovair - Such sad news. Here it is on the RAF News Web site:
You are the weakest link - Goodbye!
twinboom - Thanks, yes the campaign is aware of Lord Tebbit's opinion, and yes, we do count him as a supporter.
The campaign will, of course, continue until justice is done.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Come on chaps, such schadenfreude isn't worthy of this camapign.
I was pleased to note the Lord Tebbitt's comments in the Guild News; let us hope that he and others of such calibre will force a change in the verdict.
I was pleased to note the Lord Tebbitt's comments in the Guild News; let us hope that he and others of such calibre will force a change in the verdict.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have sent a copy of a letter from Adam Ingram, Minister of State for Armed Forces, to Brian Dixon, which was sent to my MP after I originally put a few questions to him that Brian had devised. Brian will post it for all to see I expect.
In the meantime, this link was included in Mr Ingram's letter as the government's response. I hadn't seen it before and thought it might be of interest to those in a similar position.
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
In the meantime, this link was included in Mr Ingram's letter as the government's response. I hadn't seen it before and thought it might be of interest to those in a similar position.
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
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
Thanks for sight of your letter InFin,
As usual, there are several areas which can easily be challenged. Despite all the explanations, Mr Ingram still misses the point of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Surely the MoD must realise the damage this whole injustice is doing to the morale of the RAF. Perhaps they simply don't care about our servicemen and women?
Anyway, below is the letter sent to InFin's MP. See what you think.
MoD HEADED PAPER dated 24 October 2002
Dear (MP),
Thank you for your letter of 10 October (reference: xxx) to Geoff Hoon, enclosing an e-mail from your constituent, Mr InFin of (home address), about the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
I can assure you that there has been no “cover up” regarding this accident as (InFin) suggests. This Government, as previous administrations, has been entirely open about this tragic accident. As you will doubtless be aware, we have responded fully to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD576. Indeed, before the statements in both Houses on 22July, explaining why the Government was unable to support the Select Committee’s conclusions, all the complex technical and legal issues, including airmanship issues raised in the Committee’s report were examined fully.
The Committee’s report included several references to the original Boeing work undertaken to assist the RAF Board of Inquiry. The Reviewing Officers’ judgement did not rely on Boeing’s original work and neither does our consideration of the Committee’s report and determination of the cause of the accident. Nevertheless it was important that we brought the Committee’s comments to the Company’s attention and ask for clarification. We also asked Boeing to review their original flight profile analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.
As we made clear in our statements, the only explanation that fits all the known and agreed facts is the conclusion reached by the Boards of Inquiry: that the pilots flew the aircraft at high speed, low, in contravention of visual flight rules into the Mull.
(InFin) takes issue with our view that negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident. However I am sure he would, for example, accept that a motorist who drives too fast along a suburban street and crashes his car is negligent, even if his brakes failed and this contributed to the accident. In the case of the Mull accident, the standard of proof required the Reviewing Officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that the pilots was a cause of the accident, but not necessarily the sole cause.
This issue is covered in detail in section six of our response to the Select Committee report, and you may be interested to see our full response which can be found on the internet at:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
(InFin) also mentions Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s apparent change of heart about the Board of Inquiry findings. Geoff Hoon has discussed Sir Malcolm’s concerns with him and Sir Malcolm has said that he did not want to see the technical aspects of the case. This was because the issues were ruled out as possible causes by the RAF Board of Inquiry. Geoff Hoon and myself have been briefed fully about all the issues relating to the accident, including the technical history of the Chinook Mk2. We have both reviewed , in depth, all the evidence, and are satisfied that technical issues have no relevance to the cause of the Mull of Kintyre Crash.
Finally (InFin) touches on the possibility of Judicial Review. I suggest that it would be appropriate to await the debate scheduled for the Lords on 5 November and any further discussion in the Commons, before addressing such issues. In any event, in the absence of any new evidence, it cannot be right to disturb the findings of a carefully thought thorough Board of Inquiry finding.
I hope this explains the position.
Signed – The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP
Feel free to write and let him know if you disagree.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
As usual, there are several areas which can easily be challenged. Despite all the explanations, Mr Ingram still misses the point of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Surely the MoD must realise the damage this whole injustice is doing to the morale of the RAF. Perhaps they simply don't care about our servicemen and women?
Anyway, below is the letter sent to InFin's MP. See what you think.
MoD HEADED PAPER dated 24 October 2002
Dear (MP),
Thank you for your letter of 10 October (reference: xxx) to Geoff Hoon, enclosing an e-mail from your constituent, Mr InFin of (home address), about the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
I can assure you that there has been no “cover up” regarding this accident as (InFin) suggests. This Government, as previous administrations, has been entirely open about this tragic accident. As you will doubtless be aware, we have responded fully to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD576. Indeed, before the statements in both Houses on 22July, explaining why the Government was unable to support the Select Committee’s conclusions, all the complex technical and legal issues, including airmanship issues raised in the Committee’s report were examined fully.
The Committee’s report included several references to the original Boeing work undertaken to assist the RAF Board of Inquiry. The Reviewing Officers’ judgement did not rely on Boeing’s original work and neither does our consideration of the Committee’s report and determination of the cause of the accident. Nevertheless it was important that we brought the Committee’s comments to the Company’s attention and ask for clarification. We also asked Boeing to review their original flight profile analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.
As we made clear in our statements, the only explanation that fits all the known and agreed facts is the conclusion reached by the Boards of Inquiry: that the pilots flew the aircraft at high speed, low, in contravention of visual flight rules into the Mull.
(InFin) takes issue with our view that negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident. However I am sure he would, for example, accept that a motorist who drives too fast along a suburban street and crashes his car is negligent, even if his brakes failed and this contributed to the accident. In the case of the Mull accident, the standard of proof required the Reviewing Officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that the pilots was a cause of the accident, but not necessarily the sole cause.
This issue is covered in detail in section six of our response to the Select Committee report, and you may be interested to see our full response which can be found on the internet at:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi...k_response.pdf
(InFin) also mentions Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s apparent change of heart about the Board of Inquiry findings. Geoff Hoon has discussed Sir Malcolm’s concerns with him and Sir Malcolm has said that he did not want to see the technical aspects of the case. This was because the issues were ruled out as possible causes by the RAF Board of Inquiry. Geoff Hoon and myself have been briefed fully about all the issues relating to the accident, including the technical history of the Chinook Mk2. We have both reviewed , in depth, all the evidence, and are satisfied that technical issues have no relevance to the cause of the Mull of Kintyre Crash.
Finally (InFin) touches on the possibility of Judicial Review. I suggest that it would be appropriate to await the debate scheduled for the Lords on 5 November and any further discussion in the Commons, before addressing such issues. In any event, in the absence of any new evidence, it cannot be right to disturb the findings of a carefully thought thorough Board of Inquiry finding.
I hope this explains the position.
Signed – The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP
Feel free to write and let him know if you disagree.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wheels turn slowly, but as this story shows, they do turn.
Hopefully it will not take the Ministry of Defence as long to right the wrong of Chinook ZD 576 as it did to right this wrong from May 1953, and in spite of what The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP states.
New inquest to be held on airman in 1953 gas tests
By Cathy Gordon
19 November 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=353594
The High Court ordered a fresh inquest yesterday on a young serviceman who died nearly 50 years ago during nerve-gas tests at Porton Down research centre.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, sitting with Mrs Justice Hallett in London, took the "exceptional" course of quashing a misadventure verdict on Leading Aircraftman Ronald Maddison, of Swindon, Wiltshire, who died aged 20, and ordering the new hearing.
Lord Woolf said: "Justice requires that these matters are properly investigated." The original inquest was held in private. The application for the new one was brought by David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, and was not opposed by the Ministry of Defence.
Former servicemen involved in the tests have campaigned for an inquiry, claiming comrades died after being exposed to nerve agents at Porton Down, near Salisbury. LAC Maddison was said to have been told he was helping in experiments to find a cure for the common cold in May 1953, but died after being exposed to sarin.
The Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who has campaigned for the servicemen since 1967, welcomed the decision. He said: "There is considerable point in having a serious re-opening of this case because never again must the authorities think they can get away with any such treatment of servicemen."
Mr Dalyelladded: "Ronald Maddison thought he was part of an experiment to find a cure for the common cold. He was offered 14 days' leave and £15 was put in his pocket; he was injected and he died."
Mr Maddison's sister Lillias Craik, 68, of Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, said: "We are very pleased, thrilled to bits. We just hope that now we will get to know the truth and nothing but the truth."
Alan Care, the family's solicitor, said: "It is an historic moment for the Maddisons, and also legally." A jury is expected to hear the new inquest, likely to last between six and eight weeks.
Seven years ago, 12 people died and 5,000 were injured after a religious cult released sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.
Hopefully it will not take the Ministry of Defence as long to right the wrong of Chinook ZD 576 as it did to right this wrong from May 1953, and in spite of what The Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP states.
New inquest to be held on airman in 1953 gas tests
By Cathy Gordon
19 November 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=353594
The High Court ordered a fresh inquest yesterday on a young serviceman who died nearly 50 years ago during nerve-gas tests at Porton Down research centre.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, sitting with Mrs Justice Hallett in London, took the "exceptional" course of quashing a misadventure verdict on Leading Aircraftman Ronald Maddison, of Swindon, Wiltshire, who died aged 20, and ordering the new hearing.
Lord Woolf said: "Justice requires that these matters are properly investigated." The original inquest was held in private. The application for the new one was brought by David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, and was not opposed by the Ministry of Defence.
Former servicemen involved in the tests have campaigned for an inquiry, claiming comrades died after being exposed to nerve agents at Porton Down, near Salisbury. LAC Maddison was said to have been told he was helping in experiments to find a cure for the common cold in May 1953, but died after being exposed to sarin.
The Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who has campaigned for the servicemen since 1967, welcomed the decision. He said: "There is considerable point in having a serious re-opening of this case because never again must the authorities think they can get away with any such treatment of servicemen."
Mr Dalyelladded: "Ronald Maddison thought he was part of an experiment to find a cure for the common cold. He was offered 14 days' leave and £15 was put in his pocket; he was injected and he died."
Mr Maddison's sister Lillias Craik, 68, of Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, said: "We are very pleased, thrilled to bits. We just hope that now we will get to know the truth and nothing but the truth."
Alan Care, the family's solicitor, said: "It is an historic moment for the Maddisons, and also legally." A jury is expected to hear the new inquest, likely to last between six and eight weeks.
Seven years ago, 12 people died and 5,000 were injured after a religious cult released sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government/MOD response
InFin,
The link to the MOD response which you supplied makes interesting reading and I am a little surprised that it has not been discussed further on this forum.
As the official government response, it is also surprising (not!) how inaccurate and misleading it is. For instance, I have done a little work cross-referring the conclusions reached by the MOD with respect to the Boeing simulation.
Remember the initial fix at Aldergrove (one of the "facts")? Well that was not a radar fix, but a position report i.e. an estimate. And that estimated position was , I am fairly sure, passed to Boeing by the MOD as being 7nm from the VOR rather than 9nm, which I have reason to believe was the correct figure (can anyone substantiate that?). Plugging the correct figures in together with more realistic guestimates of the wind, gives an average airspeed from the initial "fix" to the waypoint change of around 136 kts - so not a high speed cruise at all as suggested by the report.
In another section, the MOD state that Boeing show the helicopter could not have accelerated from 80kts, at the estimated waypoint change position, to the estimated speed at the final flare in the distance available. On the contrary, Boeing show this could have been possible from the hover, let alone 80kts.
I do not suggest the above sheds any new light on what happened, but it does show that the official response is flawed. This was just a small part of the report that I looked into - how much else is wrong?
I am planning to dig around in the old reports some more but would like some clarification on a few other things, so is anyone able to shed any light the following?
1. Is there a record detailing all available r/t transcripts from the flight?
2. Is the Racal SuperTans report publicly available?
3. Was Machrihanish operational/open at the time of the flight?
4. would the chinook have shown on Prestwick radar, or would it have been out of rangeor filtered out?
Apologies if these questions are answered elsewhere on this thread, but I have been unable to find them.
The link to the MOD response which you supplied makes interesting reading and I am a little surprised that it has not been discussed further on this forum.
As the official government response, it is also surprising (not!) how inaccurate and misleading it is. For instance, I have done a little work cross-referring the conclusions reached by the MOD with respect to the Boeing simulation.
Remember the initial fix at Aldergrove (one of the "facts")? Well that was not a radar fix, but a position report i.e. an estimate. And that estimated position was , I am fairly sure, passed to Boeing by the MOD as being 7nm from the VOR rather than 9nm, which I have reason to believe was the correct figure (can anyone substantiate that?). Plugging the correct figures in together with more realistic guestimates of the wind, gives an average airspeed from the initial "fix" to the waypoint change of around 136 kts - so not a high speed cruise at all as suggested by the report.
In another section, the MOD state that Boeing show the helicopter could not have accelerated from 80kts, at the estimated waypoint change position, to the estimated speed at the final flare in the distance available. On the contrary, Boeing show this could have been possible from the hover, let alone 80kts.
I do not suggest the above sheds any new light on what happened, but it does show that the official response is flawed. This was just a small part of the report that I looked into - how much else is wrong?
I am planning to dig around in the old reports some more but would like some clarification on a few other things, so is anyone able to shed any light the following?
1. Is there a record detailing all available r/t transcripts from the flight?
2. Is the Racal SuperTans report publicly available?
3. Was Machrihanish operational/open at the time of the flight?
4. would the chinook have shown on Prestwick radar, or would it have been out of rangeor filtered out?
Apologies if these questions are answered elsewhere on this thread, but I have been unable to find them.
Just a numbered other
TAC
Quite. Earlier in this thread and the previous one in archives, I sparred with K52 over just these inconsistencies.
If you are determined to hang the crew, then take the figures in their worst light. The position report was simply for ATC to gain a general idea of the helo's position - not for the subsequent BofI to hang them with.
No positive evidence exists to prove negligence in this case. Those interested in justice will (and must) give the crew the benefit of the doubt. Those interested in covering their own sorry part in the tragedy will twist any stats to their own end.
Quite. Earlier in this thread and the previous one in archives, I sparred with K52 over just these inconsistencies.
If you are determined to hang the crew, then take the figures in their worst light. The position report was simply for ATC to gain a general idea of the helo's position - not for the subsequent BofI to hang them with.
No positive evidence exists to prove negligence in this case. Those interested in justice will (and must) give the crew the benefit of the doubt. Those interested in covering their own sorry part in the tragedy will twist any stats to their own end.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheAerosCo
Certainly some of your questions have been answered, however here goes:
I was an ATCO at the Scottish ATCC at that time and I personally videotaped the radar recording.
A friend (and next door neighbour) was the ATCO on duty at the time. He never heard any R/T call but from the tape transcript there was a single call, just the usual initial call as I understand it "Scottish - callsign".
There was nothing on radar, bear in mind that the 'nearest' radar was on the island of Tiree and the only other possible radar at Lowther Hill could not 'see' over all the bumps between it and Mull of Kintyre.
Machrihanish ATC was closed by then.
I was an ATCO at the Scottish ATCC at that time and I personally videotaped the radar recording.
A friend (and next door neighbour) was the ATCO on duty at the time. He never heard any R/T call but from the tape transcript there was a single call, just the usual initial call as I understand it "Scottish - callsign".
There was nothing on radar, bear in mind that the 'nearest' radar was on the island of Tiree and the only other possible radar at Lowther Hill could not 'see' over all the bumps between it and Mull of Kintyre.
Machrihanish ATC was closed by then.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD response/link
TheAerosCo
Yes, I agree. I thought there was much in the letter sent to me by my MP. I too thought it would provoke further thought as you have done and as subsequently Ark and BDiONU have done. Still, there is time.
The letter from Adam Ingram is too smooth by half. His comments on the Boeing simulation is put forward as 'reliable' wouldn't you say? No matter how hard you try simulation can NEVER be entirely reliable.
In regard to Ingram's answer to the question that "negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident." I have replied to his analogy thus: If I had been driving along 'his' suburban road doing the required 30 mph, my brakes failed and I crashed into another car, or worst still into a brick wall, how could I have ever have been accused of being negligent? I did nothing to contribute to it.
It then follows that if the Chinook crew were flying at 150kts (IF that WAS the speed) and something happened they had NO control over how can they be negligent? It doesn't matter one iota about if's but's maybe's and best guesses or views of AM's - and ALL six by definition are doubts! If you can't prove what happened it CANNOT be negligence. Something happened to cause ZD576 to hit the ground, and no-one has proved what that something was. So, damn it, where is that proof of negligence?
It is beyond my understanding why the MoD cannot accept that which, if they took one step forward to see the reality we all see, would stab them in the eyes.
There is much too much doubt for it to be passed over as Ingram and his boss have done. There is something nasty lurking in the cupboards of the MoD and it is about time they stopped vilifying John and Rick and accept the principal of "no doubt whatsoever."
Yes, I agree. I thought there was much in the letter sent to me by my MP. I too thought it would provoke further thought as you have done and as subsequently Ark and BDiONU have done. Still, there is time.
The letter from Adam Ingram is too smooth by half. His comments on the Boeing simulation is put forward as 'reliable' wouldn't you say? No matter how hard you try simulation can NEVER be entirely reliable.
In regard to Ingram's answer to the question that "negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident." I have replied to his analogy thus: If I had been driving along 'his' suburban road doing the required 30 mph, my brakes failed and I crashed into another car, or worst still into a brick wall, how could I have ever have been accused of being negligent? I did nothing to contribute to it.
It then follows that if the Chinook crew were flying at 150kts (IF that WAS the speed) and something happened they had NO control over how can they be negligent? It doesn't matter one iota about if's but's maybe's and best guesses or views of AM's - and ALL six by definition are doubts! If you can't prove what happened it CANNOT be negligence. Something happened to cause ZD576 to hit the ground, and no-one has proved what that something was. So, damn it, where is that proof of negligence?
It is beyond my understanding why the MoD cannot accept that which, if they took one step forward to see the reality we all see, would stab them in the eyes.
There is much too much doubt for it to be passed over as Ingram and his boss have done. There is something nasty lurking in the cupboards of the MoD and it is about time they stopped vilifying John and Rick and accept the principal of "no doubt whatsoever."
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 everyone,
here's the latest update for you all, regarding the Mull of Kintyre Group.
A meeting was held in the afternoon of 9 December where various options of campaign strategy were discussed. The main point from that meeting is that Mr James Arbuthnot MP has taken over from Lord Chalfont as the Chair of the Group. (You may all recall that Mr Arbuthnot was Defence Minister for Procurement at the time of the accident).
I would like to formally welcome Mr Arbuthnot as Chair and also extend my sincere thanks to Lord Chalfont for all his support, hard work and dedication to the campaign.
Parliamentary action is moving now towards the House of Commons (hence the change of Chair), so please keep in touch with your own MPs. Every time there is an issue which suggests an MoD cover up, it will be worth contacting your MP about it and also refer to the Chinook incident in the same communication.
If you have any questions, please send them to your MP so that they can contact the MoD for answers.
The MoD need to know that we will not go away. Also, if you feel like it, why not send a short note to Mr Arbuthnot pledging your support.
Updates as and when.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
here's the latest update for you all, regarding the Mull of Kintyre Group.
A meeting was held in the afternoon of 9 December where various options of campaign strategy were discussed. The main point from that meeting is that Mr James Arbuthnot MP has taken over from Lord Chalfont as the Chair of the Group. (You may all recall that Mr Arbuthnot was Defence Minister for Procurement at the time of the accident).
I would like to formally welcome Mr Arbuthnot as Chair and also extend my sincere thanks to Lord Chalfont for all his support, hard work and dedication to the campaign.
Parliamentary action is moving now towards the House of Commons (hence the change of Chair), so please keep in touch with your own MPs. Every time there is an issue which suggests an MoD cover up, it will be worth contacting your MP about it and also refer to the Chinook incident in the same communication.
If you have any questions, please send them to your MP so that they can contact the MoD for answers.
The MoD need to know that we will not go away. Also, if you feel like it, why not send a short note to Mr Arbuthnot pledging your support.
Updates as and when.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
Message sent.
Just to remind people that Chocks Wahay very helpfully posted a link to the Parliamentary website, including a facility to send an e-mail directly to Mr Arbuthnot.
It's on page 23 of this thread, dated 25 July.
Message sent.
Just to remind people that Chocks Wahay very helpfully posted a link to the Parliamentary website, including a facility to send an e-mail directly to Mr Arbuthnot.
It's on page 23 of this thread, dated 25 July.
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
Thanks Chippy.
Also, may I, on behalf of everyone involved in the campaign, take this opportunity to wish each and every one of our supporters, and those who take a different view, a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
It goes without saying that your support has kept us all going over this last year. 2003 will see the Campaign return to the House of Commons, to the MoD and right in the face of Mr Hoon.
I look forward to continuing the battle with you all.
My very best, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Also, may I, on behalf of everyone involved in the campaign, take this opportunity to wish each and every one of our supporters, and those who take a different view, a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
It goes without saying that your support has kept us all going over this last year. 2003 will see the Campaign return to the House of Commons, to the MoD and right in the face of Mr Hoon.
I look forward to continuing the battle with you all.
My very best, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: OXON
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I'm late on the issue. but doesn't the fact that they 'bonged' their auths 5 yes 5 times indicate that he was gungho negligent???
Much sympathy to the families involved but let's get realistic even if it is at a late stage. The fact is he drove the Chinook into the Mull in cloud when it should have been bloody obvious to everyone that he would hit something solid coming from the sea to land???? All this crap red herring stuff about possible unserviceabilities is rubbish. My apologies to the families concerned once again but this is becoming rather inane......Forget all the horse manure of the previous 39 pages and give the AM a break.......he's a good bloke and believe it or not one of us (SH) that is.......so get off his back....!!
Much sympathy to the families involved but let's get realistic even if it is at a late stage. The fact is he drove the Chinook into the Mull in cloud when it should have been bloody obvious to everyone that he would hit something solid coming from the sea to land???? All this crap red herring stuff about possible unserviceabilities is rubbish. My apologies to the families concerned once again but this is becoming rather inane......Forget all the horse manure of the previous 39 pages and give the AM a break.......he's a good bloke and believe it or not one of us (SH) that is.......so get off his back....!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAGA LOUT
Try a little TACT!!!
Better still, try to marshal your arguments (or opinions) into some logical and coherent format.
Before you rip into me, go back 75 - 100 pages (and into the Archives) and you will see that I was espousing similar arguments to yours 3 years ago!!!
The important thing is to establish WHY it happened so that we can prevent it happening again!!!!
Try a little TACT!!!
Better still, try to marshal your arguments (or opinions) into some logical and coherent format.
Before you rip into me, go back 75 - 100 pages (and into the Archives) and you will see that I was espousing similar arguments to yours 3 years ago!!!
The important thing is to establish WHY it happened so that we can prevent it happening again!!!!