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 4th Feb 2010, 19:35
  #6121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
Spin? Spin? Perhaps it is you who should explain yourself VSF, rather than I. Given that the finding of Gross Negligence required a certainty of "No Doubt Whatsoever" are you saying that you share the Air Marshals' confidence in it? It isn't enough to think that they were Grossly Negligent, it has to be shown beyond all doubt, which is what baston is saying and for which I thank him. He then goes on to poison the pill by calling my statement sweeping. I'm not sure if sweeping is better or worse than spinning, my instructor never covered that bit of the syllabus. Might explain a lot! As ever a golden opportunity to expand on my previous post. When I speak of Air Marshals, the RAF Provost Marshal, and of the Royal Air Force it is because they are the most involved in this affair and thus my prime concern. I am the first to admit that things have changed greatly since I served however. I have no doubt that senior officers of the other services, serving and retired, and civilians are implicated also. Whether the investigation is also similarly mixed, ie conducted by "Purple Police" I neither know nor care. The evidence and the witnesses are available to whoever is charged with following the one and questioning the others. If all that ends up with no other names and no further action then the mud will be stuck firmly and immovably to the honour of the Royal Air Force. Do we care?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 08:53
  #6122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,524
VsF

Unwarranted! At least Chug spared the time to offer you a decent response.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 09:42
  #6123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
Chugaz old bean

I am sorry if "Sweeping" offended you - it is a word with many meanings and I offer some below to put your mind at rest that no hurt was intended

163 words for "sweeping": absolute, across the board, across-the-board, aleatoric, aleatory, all-comprehensive, all-embracing, all-encompassing, all-inclusive, all-out, all-pervading, amorphous, blanket, blobby, blurred, blurry, born, broad, broad-based, cataclysmic, catastrophic, catholic, chance, chancy, chaotic, clean, clear, coasting, compendious, complete, comprehensive, confused, congenital, consummate, debris, decisive, deep-dyed, diffuse, disordered, downright, dust, dyed-in-the-wool, egregious, encyclopedic, exhaustive, extensive, far-embracing, far-extending, far-flung, far-flying, far-going, far-ranging, far-reaching, flow, flowing, foggy, fuzzy, garbage, general, glide, gliding, global, hazy, hit-or-miss, ill-defined, imprecise, inaccurate, inchoate, incoherent, indecisive, indefinable, indefinite, indeterminable, indeterminate, indiscriminate, indistinct, inexact, insurrectionary, intensive, junk, large-scale, lax, liberal, litter, loose, nonspecific, obscure, omnibus, omnipresent, orderless, out-and-out, outright, over-all, overwhelming, panoramic, perfect, pervasive, plain, plumb, pure, radical, random, regular, revolutional, revolutionary, revulsionary, revulsive, rubbish, sailing, shadowed forth, shadowy, shapeless, sheer, skating, skiing, skim, sledding, slide, sliding, slipping, slither, slithering, stochastic, straight, sweep, synoptic, thorough, thoroughgoing, through-and-through, tobogganing, total, transilient, trash, ubiquitous, umbrella, unclear, unconditional, undefined, undestined, undetermined, universal, unmitigated, unplain, unqualified, unreserved, unrestricted, unspecified, utter, vague, veiled, veritable, waste, whole, wholesale, wide, wide-extended, wide-extending, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, wide-stretching, widespread, without exception, without omission.


Take your pick!!
bast0n is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 11:56
  #6124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,856
Next Prime Minister commits to a review.

I received a letter today from the next PM.

In his letter, David writes:
(.......)

Although an extensive Board of Enquiry was conducted by senior RAF officers into the tragic loss of the Chinook, there have been a number of significant concerns raised about the findings of the Board.

As you may know, the Fatal Accident Inquiry held in Paisley, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords Select Committee, have all rejected the findings of gross negligence by the RAF Board of Inquiry against Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.

Given the public concern about the Board of Inquiry findings of gross negligence against the pilots, the Conservatives believe that the matter cannot rest there. Accordingly, we have committed to undertaking a review if we win the forthcoming General Election, a move which is supported by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and the then Minister of State, James Arbuthnot.

(..........)

Yours sincerely,

David Cameron

Last edited by BEagle; 5th Feb 2010 at 21:27. Reason: Sir Malcolm, not Sir Michael!
BEagle is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 14:15
  #6125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
BEagle

Well, we now know which party W&D will be voting for then
bast0n is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 15:10
  #6126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,969
Quite right Baston and I imagine they, and others, will be concerned their lies will be exposed in open court.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 15:56
  #6127 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
That letter is streets ahead of his previous letter! Do I hear knees knocking?
BOAC is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 19:41
  #6128 (permalink)  
Ralph Kohn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chinook crash questions continue

Because I expect that only few PPruners have seen a copy of my local newspaper, The Camberley News and Mail, I beg to offer hereunder the very slightly edited version of our ‘3 Fellows’ response to an article on RAF Chinooks that was published in last week’s edition. This response to the article was printed in to-day’s newspaper (5 February 2010).

The Editor - Camberley News and Mail

I refer to your recent article Chinook crash questions continue (Friday 29 January edition) which was a marvellous piece of reporting. I wish to support what Messrs Arbuthnot and Howarth said, but I am unable to agree with Armed Forces Minister Mr Bill Rammell’s statements about there not being any new evidence to lead the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to revisit the original RAF’s Board of Inquiry (BoI) findings. The aircraft was manifestly not ‘Airworthy’ and should not have been used for that final flight. This may not be "new" evidence to MoD, but only because it was withheld from successive inquiries; each of which, I suspect, would have found it damning confirmation of gross negligence in issuing the Military Airworthiness Certificates (Controller Aircraft Release (CAR) & Release to Service (RTS))and an abrogation of “Duty of Care" on the part of Senior Officers.

The unanswered questions are, why were the pilots charged with Gross Negligence based upon pure supposition with no actual facts, by the two senior reviewing officers who overturned the RAF’s own Board of Inquiry that could not apportion blame? Secondly, why was the aircraft released to Service whilst still not fully Airworthy?


Captain Ralph KOHN FRAeS
Regulatory Authority inspector and compiler of the Macdonald report (April 2000)
Captain Ron MACDONALD FRAeS
Qualified aircraft accident investigator (co-author)
Captain Richard KJ HADLOW FRAeS
Retired RAF Squadron Leader (co-author)

As an aside, I wonder why the Daily Telegraph did not print our reply to the letter written by the 5 Knights?
All we asked for was an airing before an impartial judge of all the evidence known, including some previously withheld.

Ralph Kohn
 
Old 5th Feb 2010, 20:40
  #6129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 81
Posts: 1,510
Sir Michael Rifkind? Hmmmmmm! No help - they need to get Sir Malcolm Rifkind on the case.
A2QFI is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 21:28
  #6130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,856
Oops!



.
BEagle is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2010, 09:03
  #6131 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Beagle - was that typo yours or his? If yours, is all the rest 100%?. If his, a vacancy in the PA's department, I guess?
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2010, 09:11
  #6132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,856
'twas my upcock!
BEagle is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2010, 11:10
  #6133 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
and.............."If yours, is all the rest 100%?"
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2010, 16:22
  #6134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,463
Nothing new as far as I know Olive, just the same old outrageous situation that has existed for the last 15 years. As you so rightly remind us, the two reviewing officers based their findings on their opinions. What they based those on is immaterial, insomuch as they did not base them on incontrovertible facts beyond all doubt whatsoever, as they were required to given their finding. I presume that one of the things they did not base their finding on was the fact that the Aircraft's RTS and Airworthiness both lacked all credibility, to say the least.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2010, 16:29
  #6135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,969
Olive

1. They judged their own case, in doing so protecting senior officers who had knowingly fabricated the CAR/RTS (in that the act of issuing the documents clearly deceived the Users into thinking the regulations had been followed).

2. It is MoD who deliberately seek to confuse airworthiness and serviceability.

3. If the above officers had not conspired to withhold vital evidence from successive inquiries, the journalists would have had no need to report what is clearly in the public interest.


Evidence should now be re-examined in the light of recent events. In particular, the actions of Controller Aircraft and ACAS, and their staffs, who clearly failed in their duty of care; and those officials who for 15 years have systematically lied to conceal the truth.

At the moment, the only officer in these areas who comes out of this looking good is Capt Brougham RN, who wrote to his superiors in MoD(PE) BEFORE the crash imploring them to take heed of Boscombe's warnings (including "positively dangerous" software implementation and systems integration failures).
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2010, 13:32
  #6136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Olive. Well said. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2010, 14:39
  #6137 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Olive Oil,
I agree with John Purdey. Well said, indeed.

The Reviewing Officers were entitled, as you say, to express an opinion. What there was no provision for, however, was the authority to substitute the findings of the President of the BoI for something of their own.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2010, 14:49
  #6138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Brian. As has been pointed out many times before, the proceedings are not complete until the convening officer has reviewed them. How many times does this have to be said? With all good wishes, JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2010, 16:49
  #6139 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Mr Purdey,
it needs to be said until people accept that there is no legal precedent which allows the Reviewing Officers to substitute a properly arrived at verdict with an opinion of their own.

Even the MoD Legal Department have been unable to locate a Regulation or Authority which permits such a change.

Good to see you back.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2010, 07:27
  #6140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 73
Posts: 370
Olive Oil is yet again substituting "Rank" for experience.
We have already established that Wratten has no "experience" whatsoever on helicopters.
Sir John's "experience" is resticted to piston engined helicopters some fifeteen years or more before the crash.
John Purdey has stated many times that the reviewing officers came to their decision with the assistance of skilled Staff Officers.
What he has never answered is why the AM's (or their Staff), felt it necessary to not only exclude the evidence of the most current Test Pilot, (Sqn Ldr Burke), but also attempt to suppress it.
dalek 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.