Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
GICASI
Good post, if I may say so.
Far too many people allowed to set a self serving agenda for the investigation (such as it was) and judge their own case. Not just those you speak of, but those in MoD(PE) who were responsible for attaining airworthiness and those in the Support Authority who were meant to maintain it. But these are precisely the people who answer all official questions (or, more to the point, don't answer them or lie in doing so).
Good post, if I may say so.
Far too many people allowed to set a self serving agenda for the investigation (such as it was) and judge their own case. Not just those you speak of, but those in MoD(PE) who were responsible for attaining airworthiness and those in the Support Authority who were meant to maintain it. But these are precisely the people who answer all official questions (or, more to the point, don't answer them or lie in doing so).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GICASI,
I struggle with this viewpoint; Day, when asked by the HOL Committee why he found the need to seek legal advice prior to his finding, responded that he knew of the enormity of the decision he was about to make. Had Day an FJ background, I may have a degree of sympathy with your comments – IMHO, Day knew exactly what he was doing when he came to the conclusion he did.
AA
I struggle with this viewpoint; Day, when asked by the HOL Committee why he found the need to seek legal advice prior to his finding, responded that he knew of the enormity of the decision he was about to make. Had Day an FJ background, I may have a degree of sympathy with your comments – IMHO, Day knew exactly what he was doing when he came to the conclusion he did.
AA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said GICASI,
Indeed, it is never to late to admit one's errors - "There is great rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repenteth .... etc".
I agree that if reputations are to be restored, then openess is definitely the way ahead. I am also certain that such action would go a long way to reconciliation and 'closure' for the families of all the deceased.
That said, I too have always had some understanding of the AM's position. The AMs had a responsibility and a military duty to our troops under fire in NI, to run an effective SH operation - but the RAF had too few aircraft because of delays in the Chinook HC2 modification programme. As a result, the AMs took the decision to bring the HC2 in to Service early. Unfortunately, the ac was palpably not definitively airworthy nor truly fit for purpose because of shortcomings in the procurement process and the overall ac design; in short, the design (mainly the engine controls) was 'immature'.
What has been almost unforgiveable, however, is the apparent avoidance by the AMs to accept responsibility for those decisions which had increased significantly the risk associated with the HC2 but without the crews' full knowledge. Ironically, if the AMs and PE had had the courage to be more honest with the crews in 1994, then I am sure those crews would still have accepted the risk of that undertaking in NI - for the sake of our troops on the ground. Furthermore, they would have been lauded for that, not pilloried as they were by the AMs in the BoI.
Such is the character and personality that is needed to get to Air Rank, then it would have been unthinkable for the AMs to admit their mistakes at that time - it would have personally disastrous and it would have cost much embarassment for the Service in the face of the other Arms. In time, however, I am certain that even such people as AMs can begin to see the irrelavence and futility of their taking such a position - to have done what they did is much, much worse in the long-term. Perhaps, at last, their consciences are pricking them?
Ultimately, a truly open acceptance of that responsibility by the AMs, along with a full apology for the veil of secrecy and duplicity which has, ever since, marked this sad and shameful episode in the history of Royal Air Force, would not only remove the slur on the names of the crew but also revive a little of the much-besmirched reputation of the AMs and even restore some honour to the name of the Service.
The door is open.
Flipster
Indeed, it is never to late to admit one's errors - "There is great rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repenteth .... etc".
I agree that if reputations are to be restored, then openess is definitely the way ahead. I am also certain that such action would go a long way to reconciliation and 'closure' for the families of all the deceased.
That said, I too have always had some understanding of the AM's position. The AMs had a responsibility and a military duty to our troops under fire in NI, to run an effective SH operation - but the RAF had too few aircraft because of delays in the Chinook HC2 modification programme. As a result, the AMs took the decision to bring the HC2 in to Service early. Unfortunately, the ac was palpably not definitively airworthy nor truly fit for purpose because of shortcomings in the procurement process and the overall ac design; in short, the design (mainly the engine controls) was 'immature'.
What has been almost unforgiveable, however, is the apparent avoidance by the AMs to accept responsibility for those decisions which had increased significantly the risk associated with the HC2 but without the crews' full knowledge. Ironically, if the AMs and PE had had the courage to be more honest with the crews in 1994, then I am sure those crews would still have accepted the risk of that undertaking in NI - for the sake of our troops on the ground. Furthermore, they would have been lauded for that, not pilloried as they were by the AMs in the BoI.
Such is the character and personality that is needed to get to Air Rank, then it would have been unthinkable for the AMs to admit their mistakes at that time - it would have personally disastrous and it would have cost much embarassment for the Service in the face of the other Arms. In time, however, I am certain that even such people as AMs can begin to see the irrelavence and futility of their taking such a position - to have done what they did is much, much worse in the long-term. Perhaps, at last, their consciences are pricking them?
Ultimately, a truly open acceptance of that responsibility by the AMs, along with a full apology for the veil of secrecy and duplicity which has, ever since, marked this sad and shameful episode in the history of Royal Air Force, would not only remove the slur on the names of the crew but also revive a little of the much-besmirched reputation of the AMs and even restore some honour to the name of the Service.
The door is open.
Flipster
Last edited by flipster; 17th Sep 2009 at 10:47.
Good to see some positive attitudes displayed on what has become a thread of somewhat entrenched positions. Whether Sir John, or for that matter anyone else, wishes to 'fess up and admit they got it wrong is for them to decide upon. Whether their presumed apologies thereafter satisfy the next of kin of those who have been so grossly maligned ever since that grotesque finding was published is, I would suggest, for the next of kin alone. What is clear to me is summarised perfectly above by flipster:
The irreconcilable tasks, to get the Chinook Mk2 into service ASAP for urgent operational use while upholding the MOD's own Airworthiness Regulations, were always beyond the abilities of the MOD or any one man or woman, no matter how august their rank. This wretched saga has shown in Spades that self-regulation does not work and in aviation it kills. Military Airworthiness Regulation and Air Accident Investigation must be removed from the MOD and RAF respectively and placed into the hands of independent authorities established for those purposes, as with civil aviation, or we are doomed forever to witness ever more avoidable accidents and deaths.
The AMs had a responsibility and a military duty to our troops under fire in NI, to run an effective SH operation - but the RAF had too few aircraft because of delays in the Chinook HC2 modification programme. As a result, the AMs took the decision to bring the HC2 in to Service early. Unfortunately, the ac was palpably not definitively airworthy nor truly fit for purpose because of shortcomings in the procurement process and the overall ac design; in short, the design (mainly the engine controls) was 'immature'.
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
Apart from your sympathies towards Mr Day, GICASI, I agree with you.
Over the years there has been so much post-BoI information made known which has afforded the Reviewing Officers the opportunity to say, "Oh, I wasn't aware of that at the time I expressed my opinion." As such, it has always been in their power to reverse that opinion whilst, at the same time, saving face.
The fact that they chose not to do so suggests they are fully aware of the implications of their actions. I accept that they may well have done some good during their respective careers but if this final action is the main event for which they are remembered, they have only themselves to blame. I believe that Ancient Aviator's comments are closer to the mark.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Over the years there has been so much post-BoI information made known which has afforded the Reviewing Officers the opportunity to say, "Oh, I wasn't aware of that at the time I expressed my opinion." As such, it has always been in their power to reverse that opinion whilst, at the same time, saving face.
The fact that they chose not to do so suggests they are fully aware of the implications of their actions. I accept that they may well have done some good during their respective careers but if this final action is the main event for which they are remembered, they have only themselves to blame. I believe that Ancient Aviator's comments are closer to the mark.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 19th Sep 2009 at 09:48.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I Really Say That?
Brian,
How could you? I mean, really? What on earth in my recent post (#5711) could give you the impression that Bill Wratten had done some good during his career?
I lost interest in Wratten after his "hang 'em and flog 'em" speech, in which he made it clear that, in his opinion, too many recent BOIs had been too lenient and it was time to make an example of someone. Wratten should stay in his isolated, entrenched position. I still think Sir John can credibly do the right thing. Belated as this would be, it would be a brave restorative act and 3 reputations would be salvaged.
Wratten can dissolve in his own bile.
Respect to you, as always,
GICASI
How could you? I mean, really? What on earth in my recent post (#5711) could give you the impression that Bill Wratten had done some good during his career?
I lost interest in Wratten after his "hang 'em and flog 'em" speech, in which he made it clear that, in his opinion, too many recent BOIs had been too lenient and it was time to make an example of someone. Wratten should stay in his isolated, entrenched position. I still think Sir John can credibly do the right thing. Belated as this would be, it would be a brave restorative act and 3 reputations would be salvaged.
Wratten can dissolve in his own bile.
Respect to you, as always,
GICASI
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
GICASI,
my sincere apologies.
Without the irrefutable evidence of witness testimony, there was inevitably a degree of speculation as to the contribution of Mr Wratten.
I will send myself away to a far flung corner of the planet for a few weeks as of tomorow as suitable punishment!
See you when I return!
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
my sincere apologies.
Without the irrefutable evidence of witness testimony, there was inevitably a degree of speculation as to the contribution of Mr Wratten.
I will send myself away to a far flung corner of the planet for a few weeks as of tomorow as suitable punishment!
See you when I return!
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GICASI
With reference to your post #5711.
The door to the Flight Safety Office at HQ 1 Gp was almost always open so that people could drop in with any queries they may have had. The door was only closed if the Office was empty or we were processing Classified or "In Confidence" material. I have No recollection of your dropping by and discussing the Chinook BOI.
You have also, in common with a large number of others who pontifcate on this thread, completely ignored the fact that when the BOI reached HQ 1 Group (after being reviewed by OC RAF Aldergrove and OC RAF Odiham) it already contained a "Finding" of Negligence. OC RAF Odiham stated in his Remarks that Flt Lt Tapper, as Captain of the Aircraft, had a "Duty of care" in respect of his Crew and Passengers and that he had failed in that Duty. In deference to PPRuNe Pop I will quote the definition for negligence contained in Chambers Dictionary:
" Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require."
That Finding, being already extant, had to be addressed; as did the role of Flt Lt Cook (who was the incoming Detatchment Commander) as Handling Pilot. It was our conclusion that the rules for low level flight in VMC had been breached and that Flt Lt Cook also had a duty to ensure that the Aircraft was flown by him in accordance with the requirements for low level Flight in VMC.
The BOI, complete with comments from HQ 1 Gp Staff, was reviewed by SASO before being forwarded to AOC 1 Gp for his decision. Subsequently the BOI was passed to HQ STC where the process was repeated and finally, and uniquely in my experience, the completed BOI was passed to Mod Air for review by CAS prior to publication.
I am flattered that you believe that I, as a Specialist Aircrew Flt Lt, was capable of influencing the viewpoints of so many Air Officers past and present.
With reference to your post #5711.
The door to the Flight Safety Office at HQ 1 Gp was almost always open so that people could drop in with any queries they may have had. The door was only closed if the Office was empty or we were processing Classified or "In Confidence" material. I have No recollection of your dropping by and discussing the Chinook BOI.
You have also, in common with a large number of others who pontifcate on this thread, completely ignored the fact that when the BOI reached HQ 1 Group (after being reviewed by OC RAF Aldergrove and OC RAF Odiham) it already contained a "Finding" of Negligence. OC RAF Odiham stated in his Remarks that Flt Lt Tapper, as Captain of the Aircraft, had a "Duty of care" in respect of his Crew and Passengers and that he had failed in that Duty. In deference to PPRuNe Pop I will quote the definition for negligence contained in Chambers Dictionary:
" Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require."
That Finding, being already extant, had to be addressed; as did the role of Flt Lt Cook (who was the incoming Detatchment Commander) as Handling Pilot. It was our conclusion that the rules for low level flight in VMC had been breached and that Flt Lt Cook also had a duty to ensure that the Aircraft was flown by him in accordance with the requirements for low level Flight in VMC.
The BOI, complete with comments from HQ 1 Gp Staff, was reviewed by SASO before being forwarded to AOC 1 Gp for his decision. Subsequently the BOI was passed to HQ STC where the process was repeated and finally, and uniquely in my experience, the completed BOI was passed to Mod Air for review by CAS prior to publication.
I am flattered that you believe that I, as a Specialist Aircrew Flt Lt, was capable of influencing the viewpoints of so many Air Officers past and present.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by caz
It was our conclusion
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selective Quotations
As I have been "put out to pasture" by the Mull Group I have been very reluctant to enter the debate on this thread for some time, but Cazatou's post at 5720 is such a travesty of the truth and a selective quote from the Odiham Stn Cdr's comments that I feel I should respond. As Cazatou obviously knows all of what the Stn Cdr Odiham said he will acknowledge that in a six paragraph set of comments the first 5 paragraphs both fail to suggest aircrew error, and do not necessarily agree with the BoI's conclusions on the sequence of events. After, I understand, having his comments sent back for "amendment" (perhaps Cazatou could confirm this rumour) the Stn Cdr's full comments on Human Failings were actually:
6. In assessing human failings the evidence is insufficient to be specific. However, there is no indication of a major technical malfunction and Flt Lt Tapper and his crew were undoubtedly competent to carry out the mission. In carrying out that mission Flt Lt Tapper, as captain of an aircraft in peacetime, had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and. the passengers. While there may, arguably, be some mitigating circumstances, I am regrettably drawn to the conclusion that he failed in that duty.
This is hardly a revelation - we all owe a duty of care to our fellow citizens all the time. It is certainly not a provable conclusion of negligence and more importantly the link to gross negligence which Cazatou supports. There is no doubt that Tapper and Cook owed a "duty of care" to their crew and passengers - there is no proof that they failed to provide it. People's opinions (including the "regretable" conclusion of the Odiham Stn Cdr) based on a subjective judgement and a very selective use of the facts (which did not include any investigation of the airworthiness of the Chinook fleet and the Boscombe Down concerns - an amazing (and directed?) omission by the BoI) are not the required proof of negligence. Worse, where were the 1 Gp and HQSTC staffs' proper assessments of the inadequacies of the BoI on the engineering side - or were they keeping their heads under the parapet by direction as well?
Perhaps Cazatou could also explain why the duty of care he relies on to support the "negligence" of the Chinook pilots went "out of the window" when, with the same Reviewing Officers, it was decided in the case of the September 1994 Tornado accident in Glen Ogle (caused, without any doubt, by the pilot's control inputs) the conclusion should be so different. To quote from what I find to be an amazing comment from the AOC:
“Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident, I agree that Flt Lt xxxxx should be absolved from blame.”
Even more amazingly in terms of the consistency and fairness of the BoI system the Senior Reviewing Officer's comments include:
“Notwithstanding a thorough investigation and the availability of evidence revealing the precise activities of the crew up to the point of impact, there is no explanation for the final manoeuvre flown by Flt Lt xxxxx.”
On the Chinook though he said:
“Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact.
Back to Glen Ogle he concludes:
“It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture… that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis.”
However on the Chinook he is happy to find Gross Negligence despite admiting that his conclusion is based on hypothesis as confirmed by the comment:
“Why they therefore elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.”
This is why the Chinook verdict (which is unsupportable even with the limited evidence taken by the BoI let alone with any proper investigation to include all the airworthiness and engineering issues) will continue to be questioned as long as people are interested in justice - it is also part of the reason (add Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules, Puma, etc) why, IMHO, the military airworthiness and flight safety systems should be independent of the Command Chain.
JB
6. In assessing human failings the evidence is insufficient to be specific. However, there is no indication of a major technical malfunction and Flt Lt Tapper and his crew were undoubtedly competent to carry out the mission. In carrying out that mission Flt Lt Tapper, as captain of an aircraft in peacetime, had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and. the passengers. While there may, arguably, be some mitigating circumstances, I am regrettably drawn to the conclusion that he failed in that duty.
This is hardly a revelation - we all owe a duty of care to our fellow citizens all the time. It is certainly not a provable conclusion of negligence and more importantly the link to gross negligence which Cazatou supports. There is no doubt that Tapper and Cook owed a "duty of care" to their crew and passengers - there is no proof that they failed to provide it. People's opinions (including the "regretable" conclusion of the Odiham Stn Cdr) based on a subjective judgement and a very selective use of the facts (which did not include any investigation of the airworthiness of the Chinook fleet and the Boscombe Down concerns - an amazing (and directed?) omission by the BoI) are not the required proof of negligence. Worse, where were the 1 Gp and HQSTC staffs' proper assessments of the inadequacies of the BoI on the engineering side - or were they keeping their heads under the parapet by direction as well?
Perhaps Cazatou could also explain why the duty of care he relies on to support the "negligence" of the Chinook pilots went "out of the window" when, with the same Reviewing Officers, it was decided in the case of the September 1994 Tornado accident in Glen Ogle (caused, without any doubt, by the pilot's control inputs) the conclusion should be so different. To quote from what I find to be an amazing comment from the AOC:
“Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident, I agree that Flt Lt xxxxx should be absolved from blame.”
Even more amazingly in terms of the consistency and fairness of the BoI system the Senior Reviewing Officer's comments include:
“Notwithstanding a thorough investigation and the availability of evidence revealing the precise activities of the crew up to the point of impact, there is no explanation for the final manoeuvre flown by Flt Lt xxxxx.”
On the Chinook though he said:
“Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact.
Back to Glen Ogle he concludes:
“It is therefore because there is no scope for conjecture… that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Despite the wealth of detailed evidence, we are confounded and under these particular circumstances I consider it is futile to indulge in hypothesis.”
However on the Chinook he is happy to find Gross Negligence despite admiting that his conclusion is based on hypothesis as confirmed by the comment:
“Why they therefore elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.”
This is why the Chinook verdict (which is unsupportable even with the limited evidence taken by the BoI let alone with any proper investigation to include all the airworthiness and engineering issues) will continue to be questioned as long as people are interested in justice - it is also part of the reason (add Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules, Puma, etc) why, IMHO, the military airworthiness and flight safety systems should be independent of the Command Chain.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 2nd Oct 2009 at 09:04.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB,
As ever a very thought provoking and insightful post which when laid out in those very simplistic terms makes it impossible for anyone to justify the findings in this case
As ever a very thought provoking and insightful post which when laid out in those very simplistic terms makes it impossible for anyone to justify the findings in this case
“Notwithstanding a thorough investigation and the availability of evidence revealing the precise activities of the crew up to the point of impact, there is no explanation for the final manoeuvre flown by Flt Lt xxxxx.”
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB - a beautifully succinct post that hit the nail on the head. As an ex Chinook driver (20+ yrs, 5000hrs) even I rarely visit this thread as the rabbit holes that various individuals have disappeared down have to be seen to be believed. The wrong conclusion was obviously arrived at by whatever path and somemone should put there hand up and admit it - please.
Ignore Oo, Mmmmnice, he only does rude! By way of explanation, when you use the word "wrong", I expect it means the same to you as it does to me and as it does to the Collins English Dictionary: "not correct or truthful". I don't think that is the meaning that he ascribes to it.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And MM
You have clearly stated your credentials before giving your "expert opinion".
Remind us again Olive, apart from your very high opinion of yourself, just what is your area of expertise.
I notice another expert John Purdy has been quiet for some time.
He is the man who once stated on this thread "what were they saying, what does it matter."
Perhaps he should look at the current thread on the Puma accident and see the weight given to the CVR evidence, then reconsider his opinion.
And Caz, I notice you have contributed to the Puma thread.
The Coroner will be a Lawyer or a Doctor. You have shown your contempt for the Scottish court and the HOL, so why should you worry about the opinion of this civilian.
You have clearly stated your credentials before giving your "expert opinion".
Remind us again Olive, apart from your very high opinion of yourself, just what is your area of expertise.
I notice another expert John Purdy has been quiet for some time.
He is the man who once stated on this thread "what were they saying, what does it matter."
Perhaps he should look at the current thread on the Puma accident and see the weight given to the CVR evidence, then reconsider his opinion.
And Caz, I notice you have contributed to the Puma thread.
The Coroner will be a Lawyer or a Doctor. You have shown your contempt for the Scottish court and the HOL, so why should you worry about the opinion of this civilian.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's simply going over old ground but if you would allow me to spin your post around a bit have you found new evidence that proves without a single shadow of a doubt that the verdict in this case is safe.
Forget your own opinion just for a second as opinion counts for zip, have you the missing piece that proves once and for all what exactly , not probably happened?
If you have then please share it with us, if not then please join the rest of us in wondering what actually happened and why on that day.