Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 14th Jan 2010, 18:18
  #6041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
It can come to court if named individuals or simply the MoD is/are charged with gross negligence and a compensation claim lodged, specifically concerning NEW evidence, evidence which senior military officers are acting as government spinners and continuously moving goal posts by denying legitimacy.

Just get them in court, they have signed off the letters to the press, they have admitted to knowing about the positively dangerous software and there is no evidence of them doing anything whatsoever to deal with the subsequent lack of airworthiness BEFORE the crash. Let's have a legal examination of their actions, we'll see how confident they are when questioned under oath.

The BoI will never be opened up, if these people and their ilk have the final say. However they are not powerful enough to stitch up a civil court of law.

Last edited by nigegilb; 14th Jan 2010 at 18:29.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 18:29
  #6042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
It may well be the most likely cause, but can I just throw in the words "No doubt whatsoever"?
There is no doubt whatsoever that they displayed poor airmanship skills, poor navigation skills and poor CRM.

They were however, not guilty of gross negligence.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 18:32
  #6043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Would you care to state who you are and what qualification you have to make that statement. Or do you prefer to hide behind anonymity?
nigegilb is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:00
  #6044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
I'm an aviator with over 4000 Hours in 11 different types of RW and I don't think they were grossly negligent at all and I feel that the "Grossly Negligent" sentence should be removed However, we all know that it is the responsibility of all aircrew to ensure that the mission, sortie or task for which they have been authorised is executed in a manner that minimizes the risks and hazards to the aircraft, its occupants, ground crew, other airspace users or general public over which such aircraft are flown. In that very basic fact of airmanship they failed. That failure however, does not make them grossly negligent. Therefore I agree with the campaign committee and feel that the Gross Negligence should be over turned.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:48
  #6045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
You've recently said you are against the verdict, but every time you post it is with a "they flew the helicopter into the ground, get over it" tone.
Thor: He's a, (very polite), troll...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 19:53
  #6046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack View Post
In my opinion there is no doubt whatsoever that they displayed poor airmanship skills, poor navigation skills and poor CRM, however due to the lack of ADR, CVR etc an opinion is all I can offer.

They were however, not guilty of gross negligence.
Vec,

Excuse the red text but in my opinion the suggested changes mean that your post reads more accurately now
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:04
  #6047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
V



However, we all know that it is the responsibility of all aircrew to ensure that the mission, sortie or task for which they have been authorised is executed in a manner that minimizes the risks and hazards to the aircraft, its occupants, ground crew, other airspace users or general public over which such aircraft are flown.


The latter part is pretty close to the definition of airworthiness.

Senior officials, both Service and Civilian, had a Duty of Care to ensure an aircraft was provided capable of such execution.

The irrefutable evidence is that they knowingly did not.

The pilots may or may not have made an error, but if they did it is entirely possible it was in trying to deal with a far greater wrong imposed upon them.

Those senior officials should be called to account for their actions.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:17
  #6048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Close but not close enough.

Airworthiness is the ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown.

Which is not to be confused with Serviceability.

In my opinion there is no doubt whatsoever that they displayed poor airmanship skills, poor navigation skills and poor CRM, however due to the lack of ADR, CVR etc an opinion is all I can offer.
Surely that is what this is about. It is all about peoples opinions. This entire campaign is about the Opinions of those senior officials who made that error of judgement in calling the aircrew guilty of gross negligence.

If (Big If), If tomorrow, the RAF changed their minds and declared that the pilots were not guilty of "Gross Negligence" BUT that the cause of the accident was Pilot error.....would that make you happy?
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:35
  #6049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
VEVEVOOATIHOOATTACK

Quote:
It may well be the most likely cause, but can I just throw in the words "No doubt whatsoever"?

There is no doubt whatsoever that they displayed poor airmanship skills, poor navigation skills and poor CRM.

They were however, not guilty of gross negligence.
Spot on old bean.

Thor

You've recently said you are against the verdict, but every time you post it is with a "they flew the helicopter into the ground, get over it" tone.

It may well be the most likely cause, but can I just throw in the words "No doubt whatsoever"?

The verdict as stated is fundamentally not supported by the (lack of) evidence. Even you have admitted that, haven't you?

The airworthiness issue deserves to be addressed, and the appropriate measures taken, but the verdict must be changed.
Yup - but I have always said that on the evidence available mistakes were made by the crew. Remember my "coming home with heather in the wheels " post. An inch or two in either direction and we would not be here now, but it would still have been pilot error. Sorry if I am confusing you again Seldom!

Where aircraft do not have data recording, and for 100 years or so they have not,(FAA not thet Crabs!!) verdicts have been based on experience and what the experts of the day have surmised from what has been available.

I still run with "Pilot error" and that is no big deal.
bast0n is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:42
  #6050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Thanks Vec, for clarifying.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:58
  #6051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
V

I wasn't confusing airworthiness and servicability - it is MoD who constantly maintain they are one and the same.

The aircrew were not provided with an airworthy aircraft.

MoD has admitted, and the AAIB stated, ZD576 carried both defects and faults; and will not say what they were in the process of doing, or later did, about them.

One of the 5 signatories today was AMSO at the time - perhaps he'd care to explain the policy whereby his organisation cut funding to conduct such investigations.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 20:59
  #6052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
bast0n:
what the experts of the day have surmised from what has been available.
The experts of the day were conspicuous by their absence from the BoI, and we are only hearing from them directly 15 years after the event. That is why I call for the BoI to be reopened, so that the evidence that was not then heard can now be. This is the one opportunity the RAF has to redeem its good name so besmirched by the malignant machinations of its High Command. Yes of course they could repeat the same exercise all over again. But with the whole world watching? If they were so stupid (and on past form it is of course possible) to do so then that simply adds to the case against them in the then inevitable legal battle. Long after the participants in this saga are gone including all present here, the Royal Air Force will, I hope, still be there. It could well do without the shame and stigma of its own continuing "Dreyfus affair". Oh, and to any whose coats may be of a different hue, a word. Schadenfruede only works if you or yours are not included among the "others" to which it refers. Given the purpleness of the MOD plain that would be most unlikely. This is about far far more than the reputations of two junior Royal Air Force officers, important though that is.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 22:14
  #6053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 122
Bast0n

Your political naivete astonishes me. Your certainty is almost evangelical. How on earth can you be satisfied with "pilot error'. Nobody saw what happened and those involved are no longer with us. The whole of this thread is a collection of suppositions, opinions and theories (conspiracy or otherwise), and no one, the two AM's in particular, can be certain of the cause. Therefore there can be only one verdict - cause not positively determined.
X767 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 22:45
  #6054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
X767

Your political naivete astonishes me. Your certainty is almost evangelical. How on earth can you be satisfied with "pilot error'. Nobody saw what happened and those involved are no longer with us. The whole of this thread is a collection of suppositions, opinions and theories (conspiracy or otherwise), and no one, the two AM's in particular, can be certain of the cause. Therefore there can be only one verdict - cause not positively determined.
You have got me there! I am not being political and have never been political.
Radical, bolshie, opinionated and practical-perhaps! Ask my chums........

Evangelical?( Christian theological view emphasizing personal faith and the authority of the Bible ") Gosh! No - I have repeated over and over again that I think that on the evidence available it was pilot error. Evidence collected on aircraft crashes without the benefit of data recording relies on "a collection of suppositions, opinions and theories " collated by experts and mixed in with known facts. You don't have to see the accident to have a point of view.That is how it has always been. If you do not agree then that is fine with me.

Good night. Happy dreams.

David
bast0n is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 23:05
  #6055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,520
"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.


I was a President of two RAF Boards of Inquiry, in which both of my judgements were upheld by authority.

I am known to one or two of the above Air Marshals, individually and collectively, and I believe that their comments are challengeable from various viewpoints. In my view, it is sad to see that those who were then responsible for making judgemental views, and who are now retired, are seemingly unable to offer incisive views, other than to close ranks and protect arse.

Last edited by jindabyne; 15th Jan 2010 at 11:03.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2010, 23:42
  #6056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 122
Bast0n

Evangelical - also means "firmly believing in and actively promoting a cause".

In your case that cause is to promulgate that it was pilot error - with no knowledge of the true circumstances.

Sleep Well

X767

Oh ! and well put Jindabyne !!
X767 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 06:15
  #6057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
I am known to one or two of the above Air Marshals, individually or collectivelly, and I believe that their comments are challengeable from all historical Service viewpoints. In my view, it is sad to see that those who were then responsible for making judgemental views, and who are now retired, are now seemingly unable to offer incisive views, other than to close ranks and protect arse.
Likewise.
Many of us can quote the "there but for the grace of God" near accident in which we were involved, but we are still alive and can explain our actions (or try to defend them).
This is denied to the crew of the Chinook.
The unbelievable arrogance of these ancient aviators leaves me gasping, unless of course there is an agenda so damning that it's worth selling your soul to the devil now.

Extract from a Telegraph article earlier this month which I had missed.
It is hard to comprehend why the Ministry of Defence so stubbornly persists in refusing to remove this stain on the memory of the pilots. An institutionalised resistance to a decent resolution of this matter appears to have taken a grip of the department. Either that, or they are trying to hide something.

Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 15th Jan 2010 at 06:33. Reason: Add quote
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 11:39
  #6058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
X767

In your case that cause is to promulgate that it was pilot error - with no knowledge of the true circumstances.
Yup,again. I feel that Pilot error, a minor sin with occasionally grave consequences, is a far far better outcome than "Gross negligence", and I think it is probably obtainable from those on high who appear to have no reverse gear.

Thats all, D.

PS My 6127 is relevant as to the evidence gathering.

Last edited by bast0n; 15th Jan 2010 at 11:49. Reason: Add the PS
bast0n is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 12:17
  #6059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Airborne Aircrew View Post
Thor: He's a, (very polite), troll...
AA - I'd suggest Bast0n is quite the opposite. This thread, and to a certain degree the campaign as a whole, absolutely require contributors with a contrary viewpoint in order to survive.

Without that, we're either arguing against a brick wall, or just agreeing with ourselves all the time - that's not enough to keep things going.

Bast0n - I still think you're wrong

There just isn't enough evidence of pilot error, and enough evidence of problems with the aircraft in question and the type as a whole for CNPD to be the only verdict that a rational person could come to unless there was a hidden agenda.

It's only my opinion, but I now believe that a cover-up is the only scenario that fits the available evidence.

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 12:24
  #6060 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
After they were seen at low level, I suppose they could have pulled up above MSA. Then the FADEC threw a wobbler and caused them to descend onto the Mull.

Is that it?
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.