Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[airsound]

Angus Stickler had a 4.5 min piece on at about 0845. Not available yet on the Today site, but a recording should appear soon at
BBC News - Today - Today: Wednesday 13th January

airsound

[1.3VStall]

BOAC,

As I recall from my time in the Service, an "Error of Judgement" was classified as a genuine mistake and therefore was non culpable. On the other hand an "Error of Skill" was classified as culpable - i.e. the guy(s) had been equipped with the skills to get out of the particular situation, but porked it.

I don't know whether there were formal definitions of these for BoIs to consider, but BoIs made the call as appropriate.

Of course in this case, as no-one (with the exception of W & D!) actually knows what happened with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the only sustainable verdict is CNPD.

[Chugalug2]

Thanks Airsound, first as always with the news! I must admit for a story that I was told the public would have no interest in, as it happened so long ago, the coverage is constant and high profile; Today, all the National Papers, Flight Editorial, TV News. It just won't go away will it? How annoying is that?

[airsound]

first as always with the news!

I wish, chugs. But thanks.

I do believe the current coverage is a reflection that you can, with perseverance and contacts in the right places, get support from the media, and, once rolling, the story can go all over the place. Trouble is, you can only do that on the right day, and you never know what 'the right day' is until afterwards.

So we don't know how long our time in the spotlight will be. We need to make the most of it while we can - because it does seem, perhaps, (fingers etc crossed, touching wood and all those other things) that some sort of critical mass may be near.....

airsound

[flipster]

hear here at approx 0850 (2:50 into the prog)

BBC iPlayer - Today: 13/01/2010


Sadly, what MoD and Baroness T have failed to spot that the s/w c0ck-up is only indicative of a complete failure of the airworthiness process. That process failed to ensure the ac was legally airworthy. Spiers said nothing of note, other than to point the finger at ACAS, the RAF and MoD. They can bluff as much as they like but they will have to answer one day.....probably in court. Keep it going journos!

[1.3VStall]

At the end of the report he says "the hierarchy protecting its own".

Precisely! That is why the momentum of this campaign must not be allowed to slacken. Justice is being prevented by the arrogance of air marshals.

[BOAC]

Can someone with a sharp, interpretive and 'legal' eye summarise where we are please?

Do we in fact now have a formal admission from Lemming House (various) that the Chinook MkII was released to service in what was technically an unairworthy state?

Where does that leave the bereaved in law? Is a case now developing for an action against the Lemmings? Has anyone heard from/asked of ACAS of the time as to what judgement he had made of the aircraft before allowing it to pass into operation?

I believe it is now 'admitted' (certainly what I heard this am anyway) that the parlous state of the Chinook MkII's equipment was NOT placed in sight of the B of I. Is this alone grounds for a re-hearing? Can anyone confirm (to save me re-ploughing here) whether the board were informed of the request from B Down to cease operations?

The whole affair becomes more ridiculous as every news item is delivered.

[Tony Collins]

BOAC There was a time when I went through hundreds of pages of documents and memos. I don't recall the BOI or AAIB referencing any of the Boscombe Down memos including the ones about ceasing flying. The MoD now says the documents were "available" but not in practice - the BOI had to know what to ask for.

It may also be worth pointing out that the BOI did not reference - and there's no evidence they knew of - the Wilmington incident in which a Chinook on test was damaged by a Fadec-related overspeed. The MoD was suing Textron Lycoming at the time of the Mull crash. This wasn't known about until years later.

[An Teallach]

As to what the BoI had access to (from BD or elsewhere) and, in keeping with the Kafkaesque nature of the MoD's position thus far, I am reminded of the famous Rumsfeld quote which could easily have come from the mouth of Sir Humphrey Appleby:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know."

Memory is fading now, but I think as far as the BoI was concerned, "positively dangerous" Fadec inadequacies and the MoD's response to them would fall into the 'Unknown Unknowns' category.

[tucumseh]

Given the next postings of the BoI, they most certainly became aware of these Boscombe issues shortly after the event.

[X767]

Latest Closing of Ranks

From todays Telegraph:-

"Sir,
We understand that in the event of a Conservative administration coming to power it will revisit the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident and consider the negligence finding.
Each one of us has reviewed separately the findings of the Board of Inquiry and reached the same conclusion, namely that basic airmanship failings caused this tragic accident.
If yet another review is to take place then we would welcome an opportunity to brief ministers and discuss in necessary detail why this finding remains unescapable. in particular, it will be explained precisely why it cannot be overturned by recourse to a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which is revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts."

The letter is signed by Sir Michael Graydon, SIr Richard Johns,Sir Peter Squire,Sir Glenn Torpy and Sir Michael Alcock.

Their reference to "a hypothesis for which there is no evidence" begs the question " where is the evidence for gross negligence " ?

[1.3VStall]

Their continued arrogance astounds me. Do they really believe that by recruiting additional airships to their cause, and by writing letters to the press, that this campaign will go away? Are they getting increasingly frightened that a properly constituted (legal?) review of this whole case will show that the verdict delivered by W & D is supported only by opinion, rather than fact?

Methinks they protesteth too much!

[tucumseh]

Note that they still try to compartmentalise to the final act, when recent coverage has been entirely based on the events of October/November 1993 and the fabricated CAR/RTS.

Interestingly, by concentrating on June 1994, they have a convenient getout if CA and ACAS cannot justify their decision to ignore the regulations.

I can see buckpassing in this letter, and perhaps a rift developing between those who prepared and signed the CAR/RTS and those who operate against the RTS. Shades of Nimrod and C130 - the difference between attaining and maintaining airworthiness.

Collars tightening gentlemen?

[BOAC]

I read that the story of the mass suicide of Lemmings is just a myth. I believe the myth says that they gather together in a group before they jump.

[Chugalug2]

These gentlemen convince me that the BoI should be reopened. They indicate that they have evidence relating to this tragedy. If that is so it should be heard and evaluated by the BoI alongside, inter alia, that relating to the airworthiness of ZD576 and its sister Mk2's and given the credence it warrants. The result should be a finding somewhat sounder than the infamous hypothesis that it replaces.

[tucumseh]

In a letter to the Glasgow Herald on 7th January, the Convener of the Church of Scotland quoted the reply received to a letter to Gordon Brown;

“Although the MoD remains open to representations and evidence on this issue, unless compelling new evidence is presented of some actual (rather than hypothetical) failure of the airframe, avionics or engine, it is unlikely that the official position will change”.

Yet again MoD moves the goalposts. From the long-stated “new evidence”, why the move to evidence relating only to failure of airframe, avionics or engine?

For years they have claimed (wrongly) to have investigated all airmanship, technical and legal issues. Now, it appears, they only need to consider a small part of the technical aspect. Sorry, I must have missed this retrospective change to the regulations.

A clear attempt, yet again, to exclude evidence of systemic failings in the application of the airworthiness regulations in 1993.

It won’t wash this time, as the cat is out of the bag. Their actions are laughably transparent. This time, unlike before, questions will be asked of key participants.



Here’s a good question – which category does the DECU sit in? Engine or avionics? Therein lies the answer to why the safety critical software was mismanaged, until Boscombe applied the correct procedures. You’d think an electronics unit, containing safety critical software, would be overseen by a specialist electronics HQ Modifications Committee. Oh, the committee was disbanded in early1993, leaving no independent scrutiny; as demanded by the airworthiness regulations.

Who made this decision? The RAF. Oh dear. As I used to say on the Nimrod thread, this is the reason why the only Def Stan setting out the procedures for maintaining airworthiness has not been updated since 1990 – there is a fundamental contradiction whereby the structure of MoD no longer aligns with the Secretary of State’s requirement for independent expert scrutiny. Nobody will take on the task as they will immediately be in conflict with their management.

MoD were crucified by their own Director of Internal Audit in 1996 over this, and refused to do anything; the Chinook 2 Star in MoD(PE) saying it was “of no concern to PE”. He was later supported by CDP, and Ministers Ingram, Ainsworth and now Rammell. Safety. No concern. And yes, all evidence with Haddon-Cave.

[vecvechookattack]

Each one of us has reviewed separately the findings of the Board of Inquiry and reached the same conclusion, namely that basic airmanship failings caused this tragic accident.

At least they got that part right.

[X767]

Did they ? How do we know ?

[An Teallach]

it will be explained precisely why it cannot be overturned by recourse to a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which is revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts."

I wonder to what hypothesis they are referring? As far as I'm aware, the campaign has not officially propounded any alternative hypothesis. As the "known facts" do not amount to a hill of beans, the only hypotheses I can imagine being rendered "wholly implausible" by said sparse "known facts" would be some of Walter Kennedy's more exotic Tin Foil Hattery.

Of course, it is the absolute acme of plausibility that the highly experienced and highly qualified aircrew just took the notion to fly themselves, their aircraft and their passengers into Beinn na Lice.

[bast0n]

X767

Quote:
Each one of us has reviewed separately the findings of the Board of Inquiry and reached the same conclusion, namely that basic airmanship failings caused this tragic accident.

At least they got that part right.

Did they ? How do we know ?

Time for your head to come out from under the sand...............