Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Kilo,
I think if you read Shy's question, which came immediately after your post stating that : .
you would see that he is referring to that statement.
I've tried a Google search - my usual favourite method of discovering such info - and drawn a blank. Perhaps I'm not as skilful on the internet as the average user.
If you have the gen Shy's requested readily to hand, it would be considerate of you to answer him without adding strange little diatribes like:
- it's difficult to see what this contributes to any debate
I think if you read Shy's question, which came immediately after your post stating that : .
Neither the AOC in C STC or AOC 1 Gp to whose lot it fell to pronounce the conclusion of the BOI and its findings were in those respective Posts at the time of the Accident.
I've tried a Google search - my usual favourite method of discovering such info - and drawn a blank. Perhaps I'm not as skilful on the internet as the average user.
If you have the gen Shy's requested readily to hand, it would be considerate of you to answer him without adding strange little diatribes like:
You, of course, know better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Tandemrotor. Many thanks, your contribution was indeed very helpful - but mainly in showing where some of the continuing confusion may lie.
As to your Fact 1. The yachtsman changed his story at least twice as I recall, and his notion of the speed of the aircraft was shown to be well off-side.
Fact 2. The precise speed is surely irrelevant; the average speed over the leg tells us that they were not dawdling along.
Fact 3. Never mind that the yachtsman could see part of the coast and the base of the hillside; there were ten witnesses up near the lighthouse, ie at the height the aircraft would have to fly in order to miss the hills, who told us just how bad the local conditions were, as well as the lighthouse keepers remark that he was in fog.
You say that a case cannot be built around the other fa ts that I mentioned : ie the lighthouse at about 300 ft; the point of impact at about 500 ft, the top of the hills at that point at around 800 ft and the distance betwen he waypoit and the point of impact ie around 500 meters. I will say it just once more; THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were not facing a 300 ft hill on their intended track, they were instead facing an 800 ft hill over 500 yards to the right of their intended track and they were flying blind or as near to blind as makes no difference.
Will you please say what makes that so difficult to accept?
John Purdey
As to your Fact 1. The yachtsman changed his story at least twice as I recall, and his notion of the speed of the aircraft was shown to be well off-side.
Fact 2. The precise speed is surely irrelevant; the average speed over the leg tells us that they were not dawdling along.
Fact 3. Never mind that the yachtsman could see part of the coast and the base of the hillside; there were ten witnesses up near the lighthouse, ie at the height the aircraft would have to fly in order to miss the hills, who told us just how bad the local conditions were, as well as the lighthouse keepers remark that he was in fog.
You say that a case cannot be built around the other fa ts that I mentioned : ie the lighthouse at about 300 ft; the point of impact at about 500 ft, the top of the hills at that point at around 800 ft and the distance betwen he waypoit and the point of impact ie around 500 meters. I will say it just once more; THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were not facing a 300 ft hill on their intended track, they were instead facing an 800 ft hill over 500 yards to the right of their intended track and they were flying blind or as near to blind as makes no difference.
Will you please say what makes that so difficult to accept?
John Purdey
Just a numbered other
THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were not facing a 300 ft hill on their intended track, they were instead facing an 800 ft hill over 500 yards to the right of their intended track and they were flying blind or as near to blind as makes no difference.
This is simply your OPINION and not FACT
What was their 'intended track?' I don't know, but I would wager that it at no time included overflying the mull. It is as likely as not (my OPINION, as valid as yours but not FACT) that having identified the lighthouse, and changing the waypoint to Corran, that they intended to follow the coast northwards. What subsequently happened NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW.
The yachtsman could see both the lighthouse AND the chinook. That means that the helo was almost certainly legally in VMC flying under VFR. (Below 140KIAS clear of cloud and in sight of the surface).
THE RAF's own rules required FACTS to support a finding requiring proof beyond any doubt whatsoever. No such FACTS exist only OPINION and SUPPOSITION.
That is why some of the finest legal brains in this land found the verdict unsafe.
Will you please say what makes that so difficult to accept?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Ark Royal. Your thesis is difficult to accept because, like the 9 possible but irrelevant technical theories that have been advanced, as well as several other red herrings, it does not accord with the known facts.
If, as you say, the crew intended to follow the coast northwards, can you offerany conceivable reason why they did not do so - unless of course, as I have suggested before, you can accept that all the controls locked at that critical point and for the next 20 seconds or so, leaving no evidence whatever that they had done so. Come off it!
Meanwhile, we are going round the same bouys yet again, and it is doing no good.
Please feel free to have the last word, but clearly we are agreeing to disagree. All good wishes John Purdey.
If, as you say, the crew intended to follow the coast northwards, can you offerany conceivable reason why they did not do so - unless of course, as I have suggested before, you can accept that all the controls locked at that critical point and for the next 20 seconds or so, leaving no evidence whatever that they had done so. Come off it!
Meanwhile, we are going round the same bouys yet again, and it is doing no good.
Please feel free to have the last word, but clearly we are agreeing to disagree. All good wishes John Purdey.
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
Hi Mr Purdey,
I'm still looking for that answer to your question, I hope to have it in the next few days.
My point this time is that whilst I agree we are going around in circles a little bit, does the fact that two sides can read the same information, and reach a totally different viewpoint, not indicate that there is an element of doubt?
The (actual) facts are not sufficient for everyone to reach the same conclusion.
A little simplistic, maybe, but in it's rawest form, that is what this whole campaign is all about. The case has not been proved with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'm still looking for that answer to your question, I hope to have it in the next few days.
My point this time is that whilst I agree we are going around in circles a little bit, does the fact that two sides can read the same information, and reach a totally different viewpoint, not indicate that there is an element of doubt?
The (actual) facts are not sufficient for everyone to reach the same conclusion.
A little simplistic, maybe, but in it's rawest form, that is what this whole campaign is all about. The case has not been proved with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Seems to me there are two viewpoints.
Those who have made up their minds that the crews were grossly negligent, based on the incomplete evidence found .
Those who have not made up their minds that the crews were grossly negligent, based on the incomplete evidence found.
Spot the difference?
Thud,
Correct. JP does seem to gloss over the bits he doesn't like. For example, he still hasn't answered my question on how he knows what the crews were thinking (in my opinion possibly the most blatant piece of subjectivity to be so far proffered as fact on this entire thread).
JP (I see you soon came back
)
You earlier made a point about the option to slow down or come down to a hover. Assuming that the crew DID slow down (which is entirely possible in view of the yachtsman's evidence), and then for some reason rapidly accelerated again at the maximum rate the aircraft was capable of, what effect do you estimate this would have on the AVERAGE speed of the leg flown, as estimated later?
Those who have made up their minds that the crews were grossly negligent, based on the incomplete evidence found .
Those who have not made up their minds that the crews were grossly negligent, based on the incomplete evidence found.
Spot the difference?
Thud,
Correct. JP does seem to gloss over the bits he doesn't like. For example, he still hasn't answered my question on how he knows what the crews were thinking (in my opinion possibly the most blatant piece of subjectivity to be so far proffered as fact on this entire thread).
JP (I see you soon came back
)You earlier made a point about the option to slow down or come down to a hover. Assuming that the crew DID slow down (which is entirely possible in view of the yachtsman's evidence), and then for some reason rapidly accelerated again at the maximum rate the aircraft was capable of, what effect do you estimate this would have on the AVERAGE speed of the leg flown, as estimated later?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Can I ask you to open your mind for the couple of minutes it will take you to read and digest what I have to say?
I, like yourself, cannot find any other plausible explanation for this accident than that of controlled flight into terrain. The trouble is the reviewing officers came to a conclusion that required there “be no doubt what so ever”. This is where you and I begin to disagree!
If the Airships wanted to let this be seen as a tragic, but probably avoidable, accident they could have categorised it as ‘cause unknown’, a conclusion which would have left all airmen the choice of cause. When read in the cold light of day the ‘flimsy’ (ie précis) of the BoI leaves no room for error; Controlled Flight into Terrain. Job done.
Now I need you to stay with me on this so please read on to the end without prejudice.
If a promotion board sits and has a candidate for promotion before them with a “special recommendation for promotion” they will exam the narrative of the report for reasons why this man and not another with the same recommendation should get the required score for that years promotion quota. Should the same board review an officer who is “highly recommended for promotion” they will invariably look for reasons to upgrade him in the narrative. I’m told this is human nature and have no reason to disagree with it. I’m sure some PPruner can recount an old sage who has reasoned this phenomenon through.
In coming out with both guns blazing Day and Wratton made an awful lot of airmen look beyond the bare bones of the crash and opened up a whole can of worms which they may or may not have been trying to bury. This has led to a great many people to look beyond the ‘flimsy’ and ask questions about how there can be “no doubt what so ever” as to the cause of the crash.
I do not doubt your reasoning about most of the available facts regarding this accident however what you and I require as evidence of an individuals failure is far less than that required by the finding of both Day and Wratton when they declared that Tapper and Cooke were “grossly negligent”.
Can I ask you to open your mind for the couple of minutes it will take you to read and digest what I have to say?
I, like yourself, cannot find any other plausible explanation for this accident than that of controlled flight into terrain. The trouble is the reviewing officers came to a conclusion that required there “be no doubt what so ever”. This is where you and I begin to disagree!
If the Airships wanted to let this be seen as a tragic, but probably avoidable, accident they could have categorised it as ‘cause unknown’, a conclusion which would have left all airmen the choice of cause. When read in the cold light of day the ‘flimsy’ (ie précis) of the BoI leaves no room for error; Controlled Flight into Terrain. Job done.
Now I need you to stay with me on this so please read on to the end without prejudice.
If a promotion board sits and has a candidate for promotion before them with a “special recommendation for promotion” they will exam the narrative of the report for reasons why this man and not another with the same recommendation should get the required score for that years promotion quota. Should the same board review an officer who is “highly recommended for promotion” they will invariably look for reasons to upgrade him in the narrative. I’m told this is human nature and have no reason to disagree with it. I’m sure some PPruner can recount an old sage who has reasoned this phenomenon through.
In coming out with both guns blazing Day and Wratton made an awful lot of airmen look beyond the bare bones of the crash and opened up a whole can of worms which they may or may not have been trying to bury. This has led to a great many people to look beyond the ‘flimsy’ and ask questions about how there can be “no doubt what so ever” as to the cause of the crash.
I do not doubt your reasoning about most of the available facts regarding this accident however what you and I require as evidence of an individuals failure is far less than that required by the finding of both Day and Wratton when they declared that Tapper and Cooke were “grossly negligent”.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Tig 2. I note that you did not answer my earlier posting.
Yum Yum. D'accord!
M134. Not sure why in the case you quote the Board 'will invariably look for reasons why they should upgrade him'
Shy Torque. Don't recall saying I know what the crew were thinking, merely that we know the result of what they decided to do.
Let's all agree todisagree,as I have said before.
Regards to all. JohnPurdey
Yum Yum. D'accord!
M134. Not sure why in the case you quote the Board 'will invariably look for reasons why they should upgrade him'
Shy Torque. Don't recall saying I know what the crew were thinking, merely that we know the result of what they decided to do.
Let's all agree todisagree,as I have said before.
Regards to all. JohnPurdey
Mr Purdey,
Why do you keep saying 'let's agree to disagree', and imply that you are going to stop throwing out arguments, but then continue regardless? Bizarre.
Yum Yum and Mr Purdey,
If it were the families wishes to let the crews rest in peace then I think that would be honourable thing to do. However, I believe that the families of the deceased strongly support the campaign that Brian and others are fighting. Should their wishes not be paramount here?
Why do you keep saying 'let's agree to disagree', and imply that you are going to stop throwing out arguments, but then continue regardless? Bizarre.
Yum Yum and Mr Purdey,
If it were the families wishes to let the crews rest in peace then I think that would be honourable thing to do. However, I believe that the families of the deceased strongly support the campaign that Brian and others are fighting. Should their wishes not be paramount here?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Ed Winchester. Because the other contributers could not take the hint and drop the whole argument.
But while we are still going on about all this, I am sure we all share a very deep sympathy with the relatives of the crew. Meanwhile, little seems to have been said about the equally distressed relatives of all those passengers. Are we really saying to these husbands/sons/fathers that these good folk entrusted their lives to our Air Force, that they were then killed, and that we do not have the faintest idea how that tragedy came about?
And yes, i am off again shortly. v( JP
But while we are still going on about all this, I am sure we all share a very deep sympathy with the relatives of the crew. Meanwhile, little seems to have been said about the equally distressed relatives of all those passengers. Are we really saying to these husbands/sons/fathers that these good folk entrusted their lives to our Air Force, that they were then killed, and that we do not have the faintest idea how that tragedy came about?
And yes, i am off again shortly. v( JP
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
Hi everyone,
Mr Purdey,
I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but again, I draw your attention to my previous statement that the fact that we can disagree after reading the same evidence, suggests the MoD case is not one of absolutely no doubt.
In your reply to Shy, could you then please tell me the conversation that took place in the cockpit prior to the accident. What, exactly, was the decision? Was it a joint one or did one pilot overrule the other? Did the two crewmen take any part in the discussion?
With regard to my part in the campaign, I do my thing, purely in support of the families of the pilots. Not the other way around. If any of the pilots families ask me to stop what I am doing, I would do so immediately, irrespective of my own feelings.
With regard the crew and passengers, I am well aware of the 'opening old wounds' position. I took council, and gained great support and encouragement from one of those who lost a loved one. I have also made it patently clear that I have no intention at all, to prolonging their distress.
I do feel, however, that every family is entitled to a full investigation as to how their loved ones were killed. If, after everything, the honest answer is "We don't know for certain", someone should have the courage to say so, rather than pin the blame on two convenient scapegoats.
My apologies for getting a little on my soapbox. I have not taken any offence at anything that has been posted, but I just want to make it clear that I have always acted in support of the families, and at no point have ever intended to cause distress to the families of all who were lost.
Have a safe journey, wherever that may be.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Mr Purdey,
I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but again, I draw your attention to my previous statement that the fact that we can disagree after reading the same evidence, suggests the MoD case is not one of absolutely no doubt.
In your reply to Shy, could you then please tell me the conversation that took place in the cockpit prior to the accident. What, exactly, was the decision? Was it a joint one or did one pilot overrule the other? Did the two crewmen take any part in the discussion?
With regard to my part in the campaign, I do my thing, purely in support of the families of the pilots. Not the other way around. If any of the pilots families ask me to stop what I am doing, I would do so immediately, irrespective of my own feelings.
With regard the crew and passengers, I am well aware of the 'opening old wounds' position. I took council, and gained great support and encouragement from one of those who lost a loved one. I have also made it patently clear that I have no intention at all, to prolonging their distress.
I do feel, however, that every family is entitled to a full investigation as to how their loved ones were killed. If, after everything, the honest answer is "We don't know for certain", someone should have the courage to say so, rather than pin the blame on two convenient scapegoats.
My apologies for getting a little on my soapbox. I have not taken any offence at anything that has been posted, but I just want to make it clear that I have always acted in support of the families, and at no point have ever intended to cause distress to the families of all who were lost.
Have a safe journey, wherever that may be.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Brian Dixon. I applaud your sentiments, and like you I just wish that we were able to offer more comfort to the stricken families of ALL those involved in what has been the worst peacetime accident in the whole history of the RAF.
Reagards JP.
Reagards JP.
Just a numbered other
JP
If you really beleive that those poor folk are best served by a kangaroo court and lynching, then you insult their intelligence.
Read back and see Mrs Phoenix's comments. Yes, a wife who lost her husband, but is fair minded enough to require some proof before the blame is conveniently hung on the pilots.
I don't have to, but can think of any number of distractions, or problems which may have taken the pilots' eyes off the ball long enough to contribute to this accident, and control problems cannot be discounted. I was in the chamber of the House of Lords when the AAIB said so.
If no such distraction or malfunction happened, and the crew simply raised the nose a tad and climbed into the cloud covered mull, then they were indeed negligent. I find THAT inconceivable.
It is not for anyone to SUPPOSE what MAY HAVE happened and due to their 'superior intelect', call such supposition PROOF. It was the RAF BoI's job to prove (if a finding of gross negligence was to be entertained) beyond any doubt whatsoever what DID happen.
If we are 'going round the same bouys yet again', I make no apology for it.
You continue to answer valid argument concerning FACT with OPINIONS, which although valid OPINIONS should never be confused with FACT.
Thanks Tandem. As Brian once said, these people will have to open their eyes and ears one day. And we will still be here.
Yum Yum... I quite agree, but sadly feel unable to until justice is done. The crew's memories and the relatives of ALL the dead are not best served by things remaining as they stand.
Meanwhile, little seems to have been said about the equally distressed relatives of all those passengers. Are we really saying to these husbands/sons/fathers that these good folk entrusted their lives to our Air Force, that they were then killed, and that we do not have the faintest idea how that tragedy came about?
Read back and see Mrs Phoenix's comments. Yes, a wife who lost her husband, but is fair minded enough to require some proof before the blame is conveniently hung on the pilots.
Arkroyal.........If, as you say, the crew intended to follow the coast northwards, can you offer any conceivable reason why they did not do so
If no such distraction or malfunction happened, and the crew simply raised the nose a tad and climbed into the cloud covered mull, then they were indeed negligent. I find THAT inconceivable.
It is not for anyone to SUPPOSE what MAY HAVE happened and due to their 'superior intelect', call such supposition PROOF. It was the RAF BoI's job to prove (if a finding of gross negligence was to be entertained) beyond any doubt whatsoever what DID happen.
If we are 'going round the same bouys yet again', I make no apology for it.
You continue to answer valid argument concerning FACT with OPINIONS, which although valid OPINIONS should never be confused with FACT.
Thanks Tandem. As Brian once said, these people will have to open their eyes and ears one day. And we will still be here.
Yum Yum... I quite agree, but sadly feel unable to until justice is done. The crew's memories and the relatives of ALL the dead are not best served by things remaining as they stand.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 47
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not, I just took the time to read the entire thread. I'm neither experienced enough nor close enough to the subject matter to offer any kind of opinion.
I would say however, that every once in a while I think we yanks could learn a thing or two from the old world about how to approach an almost impossibly contentious issue with tact (with a few exceptions, obviously).
Also, of course, sympathy from across the atlantic for the bereaved.
I would say however, that every once in a while I think we yanks could learn a thing or two from the old world about how to approach an almost impossibly contentious issue with tact (with a few exceptions, obviously).
Also, of course, sympathy from across the atlantic for the bereaved.
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
Hi TRF4EVR,
I can resort to name calling if it would help.
Thanks for taking the trouble to read the thread and for your comments.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I can resort to name calling if it would help.
Thanks for taking the trouble to read the thread and for your comments.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are we to do next?
To the Cook and Tapper families,
Would some member of the Cook or Tapper families, or someone representing their interests, please advise us supporters what we might do next to help.
I still think the treatment meted out to these two pilots is the worst scandal of military 'justice' since the Dreyfus case in France at the turn of the last century. Proper justice is still owed.
Would some member of the Cook or Tapper families, or someone representing their interests, please advise us supporters what we might do next to help.
I still think the treatment meted out to these two pilots is the worst scandal of military 'justice' since the Dreyfus case in France at the turn of the last century. Proper justice is still owed.