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 15th Jan 2010, 11:39
  #6061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,119
Might be. Probably not. No one knows.
Bertie Thruster is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 11:43
  #6062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yeovil, England
Posts: 21
Question!

As no emergency calls were made before impact, how many FADEC's threw a wobbly at the same time/in rapid succession?
goffered again is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 12:12
  #6063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
AA

Originally Posted by Airborne Aircrew
Thor: He's a, (very polite), troll...
OOOH! I missed that one!

AA - I could send you a picture of me sitting on a staddle stone in my garden to confirm you worst fears! (In IMC of course) David.

I genuinely am not trying to rock the boat here, but rather to put a practical aviators point of view had I been sitting on the BOI and looking at the evidence from take off to impact. Evidence and probabilities all provided by pre data recording aircraft and eyewitnesses. I just don't think that "Not Proven" would have come out of that BOI - ignore all the political ramifications if you can, as I do, as I do not think that they had much to do with that actual flight.

I am also convinced that "Gross negligence would have not even occurred to me.

David, the Happy Troll.
bast0n is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 14:50
  #6064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
There was a time when I think many would have accepted any 'lesser' verdict, just to remove the stigma of 'gross negligence'. Such a stance would have given Their Airships a way out - with only minimal loss of face.

Unfortunately, it is coming to light that not only did Day and Wratten get it wrong but, ever since, there has been a 'pighead' (collective noun) of lemming-like Air Marshalls who have not been prepared to accept that two of their number made an error. In doing, they have colluded so as to maintain the abhorrent level of blame on the unfortunate pilots despite mountains of doubt.

That, as leaders in whom Her Majesty has placed 'especial trust', is absolutely unforgiveable and they have forfeited the opportunity for an easy escape. In the minds of many, these Sirs, Lords and Air Marshalls have no honour or decency and they are a disgrace to the uniform they once wore. If it were up to me, I would be happy to see their heads on a pole (proverbially) - preferably lining the Embankment, outside Lemming Main Building.

It is not up to me of course but, judging by the pigheads' letter in the DT yesterday, I suspect that they are already squirming - which will only intensify in court. Bring it on - I have no sympathy for them.
flipster is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 15:31
  #6065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 122
flipster

Agreed !

Apposite letter in todays Telegraph.

Sir,

"Pilot Error" is a pejorative phrase. It conjures up a picture of an aircraft operating normally until pilots blunder. In fact, pilots are the last link in the chain of events, which may originate from design, maintenance or organisational weaknesses. Usually pilots act to salvage the situation and all is well, but sometimes the outcome is an accident.
If we choose to believe Boscombe Down test pilots, rather than Whitehall - oriented Air Marshals, the Chinook was a seriously flawed aircraft. The criterion for pronouncing negligence by the deceased pilots has not been met.

Signed by Huw Baumgartner
X767 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2010, 17:47
  #6066 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
For a little levity tonight, since Flipster has picked up on my suggestion, should we rename MOD (RAF) as 'RAF Lemming'?
BOAC is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 00:42
  #6067 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gents

Help me out here, please.

Either;

1.They continued VFR into IMC which sadly led them to the Mull.

2.They had climbed to MSA and were downed by FADEC (or other airworthiness) issues, and despite putting out no calls or being seen on radar they then descended and crashed onto the Mull.

Question:

If 1. above is correct, are they guilty of the 'gross negligence' charge?
 
Old 16th Jan 2010, 06:34
  #6068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
BarbiesBoyfriend.
I'm not sure if you're taking the proverbial, have failed to read any of this thread, or are just plain thick. I discount the last option on the basis fhat you do have some hands on time (nearly 10000?).As the subject matter is quite serious I'll assume that you are serious, so that leaves me with only the second option. Your last post displays a singular lack of understanding of the details of this accident so that seems to be the logical choice. However, and this is important, I just don't know, and cannot,without any doubt whatsoever prove that you have not read this thread fully and diligently, (nor that you are not taking the p*ss , nor that you may be thick).
Do you get the drift?
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 09:13
  #6069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Good morning all. I know this is not a thread for much much humour but as I have at last managed to get out of bed - broken ribs on the ice -and AA has said that I must be a Troll I thought I would show you the senior RAF officers who are being so incredibly stupid at work on the MOD Troll chair!

Have a super weekend..............

Last edited by bast0n; 16th Jan 2010 at 10:40.
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 09:31
  #6070 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
NEW! 'Name the one that has fallen off' competition
BOAC is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 09:41
  #6071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
BB: Your hypothesis:
1. They continued VFR into IMC which sadly led them to the Mull.
If 1. above is correct, are they guilty of the 'gross negligence' charge?
They may be. They may not. That would depend entirely on the precise circumstances.

What's your opinion of what was occurring in the cockpit of ZD576 at the time in question?

Of course we have to deal in 'matters of opinion', as we cannot deal in 'matters of fact'.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 10:01
  #6072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,207
bast0n, so sorry to hear of your mishap with the icy conditions. I hope that remedial repair work is effected quickly and successfully in accordance with the Regulations. So much for my feeble attempt at humour. As to yours, a fish head or two dotted amongst the crabs would indeed have been a witty take on a serious business. As it was you chose Schadenfreude. I did warn about that!
The front line may well be manned by retired Air Marshals of various luminosities. Behind them, uncomfortable with their part in a scandal that pre-dated the Mull tragedy but directly linked to it, may be those of a more piscine persuasion. We shall, without doubt, see in due course.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 10:42
  #6073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Chugaz

Fish heads added to avoid attacks by that chap Shadywhotsit..............
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 12:21
  #6074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,207
Well done bast0n. Now that's funny! I suppose you haven't any pongo related contents in your freezer to add to the montage? No? Well never mind, the point has been made nonetheless. Of course I might have suggested that you paint your toadstool purple, but that might well infringe planning regulations and upset Mrs b so further modifications would merely gild the lily and honour is satisfied, on my part at least. I will instruct my seconds to withdraw wie and trust that they have not caused you too much inconvenience.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 13:34
  #6075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635


Chugaz,

Well, to be fair to all I have managed to find a small pile of anthracite located within the MOD that the Pongos have painted white to avoid standing out too much against a light and dark blue background..............
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 14:07
  #6076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Thor Nogson. Your 6132 ..... "This thread, and to a certain degree the campaign as a whole, absolutely require contributors with a contrary viewpoint in order to survive."
Well, at least that was honest. But many Pruners did not wish to play the game because their opinions were ignored, or the authors were insulted. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 14:24
  #6077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,207
Ah memories, memories. You try telling the young of today about whitewashing coal heaps and do they believe you? Now that we have established this inter service rapport, bast0n, might we go further and agree that the only acceptable finding, given what is now known and perhaps more importantly what we do not know and never will, is one of "CNPD"? While we have no reason to suppose that the pilots did not conduct themselves with professionalism throughout this flight we now know that those charged with supplying them with an airworthy aircraft failed totally in that duty. The only reason that the cause of this accident cannot be ascribed to that total failure is that we do not know positively that it was. On the basis of probability it was IMHO a more probable cause and it would be inequitable to blame the pilots in any way while not blaming those who failed so shockingly in their duty. That is why "Pilot Error" is not acceptable to me. Perhaps you might, upon reconsideration, agree?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2010, 19:30
  #6078 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tandem.

'What's my opinion?' Well, firstly it IS only an opinion and worth no more than anybody elses, maybe less than some on here that have Chinook or rotary time, which I have zero of.

I think they pressed on in marginal VMC and realised where they were a little too late.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong and I'm certainly not stating that that is what happened.

What I was driving at is this: Since, even if what I think took place, actually took place (and I accept we'll never know for sure) would that be enough to justify the very strong 'gross negligence' charge?

After all, plenty of other pilots have had various versions of the same accident and I'm sure that they were not all branded 'grossly negligent'.
 
Old 16th Jan 2010, 20:47
  #6079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by flipster
Unfortunately, it is coming to light that not only did Day and Wratten get it wrong but, ever since, there has been a 'pighead' (collective noun) of lemming-like Air Marshalls who have not been prepared to accept that two of their number made an error. In doing, they have colluded so as to maintain the abhorrent level of blame on the unfortunate pilots despite mountains of doubt.
That sounds awfully like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to me...
RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 00:33
  #6080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Hi BB
What I was driving at is this: Since, even if what I think took place, actually took place (and I accept we'll never know for sure) would that be enough to justify the very strong 'gross negligence' charge?
The concept of 'gross negligence' of deceased aircrew is a concept which was only possible for military aircrew of that time. To my knowledge it has no parallel in civil accident investigations, and the military have changed their procedures, so such a verdict is not even possible in military proceedings now.

At that time the standard of proof required to be satisfied for such a finding, was that of 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. This standard is some way beyond standards such as 'balance of probability', or even 'beyond reasonable' doubt!

According to the RAF's rules, without there being 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever', a finding of negligence cannot be made in circumstances in which the crew are unable to provide their version of events.

Some here believe that is entirely in keeping with the concept of natural justice, and also in the highest traditions of the Royal Air Force, which seeks to offer some protection to those unable to defend themselves from serious allegations.

So, in answer to your question; can the charge of gross negligence be justified?

In view of the above, my position is crystal clear: Though we may all have our own 'opinions', no the charge cannot be justified.

I'm hoping you may feel the same way?
Tandemrotor is offline  

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.