Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
For Brian Dixon. I'm back in the circuit again. After the vote in the HofL, there seems no hope of revisiting this sad business unless, as you hint on 21 March, you have come up with some hitherto undisclosed information. Please tell us all what it is.
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,
The vote in the HoL was nothing more than a whipped vote on a moral issue. A shameful situation that no-one who voted as a result of being 'whipped' should be proud of.
The only time that I (and many others) will allow this matter to rest is when natural justice has been seen to be done, and an unsustainable verdict and shameful accusation is removed from two deceased pilots' records.
May I also apologise for having no 'hitherto undisclosed information' (although you may find some in Government Departments). The main issue I am looking at is the lack of response to the final call from ZD576. I understand that the call was recorded by the ATC equipment, there were three people on the console, yet no reply. Subsequent checks of the equipment found it to be in full working order.
Why no response? Why no follow up call from the Chinook? Can anyone say with absolute certainty why follow up call was made? There is a chance (no matter how remote) that the aircrew were busy with a major incident (or distracted by a minor one) thereby preventing a follow up call. Doesn't matter how slim that chance, but the fact that it is yet another possibility that fits with known facts should be enough to undermine the absolutely no doubt requirement. But, as you know - we've been down this particular road several times before.
Before you say, "Well why no call on the emergency frequency?", you will recall that the IFF was moved from 7000 to 7760. It just may be that someone was trying to change it to the emergency setting of 7700. No one will know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Kind regards,
Brian Dixon
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for typos
The vote in the HoL was nothing more than a whipped vote on a moral issue. A shameful situation that no-one who voted as a result of being 'whipped' should be proud of.
The only time that I (and many others) will allow this matter to rest is when natural justice has been seen to be done, and an unsustainable verdict and shameful accusation is removed from two deceased pilots' records.
May I also apologise for having no 'hitherto undisclosed information' (although you may find some in Government Departments). The main issue I am looking at is the lack of response to the final call from ZD576. I understand that the call was recorded by the ATC equipment, there were three people on the console, yet no reply. Subsequent checks of the equipment found it to be in full working order.
Why no response? Why no follow up call from the Chinook? Can anyone say with absolute certainty why follow up call was made? There is a chance (no matter how remote) that the aircrew were busy with a major incident (or distracted by a minor one) thereby preventing a follow up call. Doesn't matter how slim that chance, but the fact that it is yet another possibility that fits with known facts should be enough to undermine the absolutely no doubt requirement. But, as you know - we've been down this particular road several times before.
Before you say, "Well why no call on the emergency frequency?", you will recall that the IFF was moved from 7000 to 7760. It just may be that someone was trying to change it to the emergency setting of 7700. No one will know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Kind regards,
Brian Dixon
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for typos
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Hello Brian Dixon. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm afraid we have been down this road very many times. As to the HofL debate, there were two or three very good speeches on both sides, but the most convincing ones favoured the CFIT verdict. And no-one in the debate could explain how a technical fault (and you will recall that no fewer than nine had been suggested and discounted at various stages of this long-running saga) might have led to the crash.
I happen to believe very firmly that it was a CFIT, but I know you will never be convinced. Perhaps the subject is best left as it is.
I happen to believe very firmly that it was a CFIT, but I know you will never be convinced. Perhaps the subject is best left as it is.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not disagree with John Purdey more strongly. Leave matters as they stand? Rubbish!
Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook were not a pair of student private pilots on the loose from some low grade FTO: they were highly skilled and experienced special forces pilots and must have been among Britain's best. Thus, it is inconceivable that, specially when carrying such a precious load of pax, they would have breached VFR/IFR low flying rules other than in circumstances of extreme emergency.
The Chinook did not carry the kind of flight recorders and cockpit voice recorders that a civilian aircraft would carry and the two pilots, being killed in the crash, became unavailable to be interrogated on the circumstances of the crash. It is in the very nature of emergencies caused by software (if that is what happened) that they leave no evidence.
Thus, it is impossible to say what happened and therefore impossible to award blame to the pilots under the rules in force in the RAF at that time.
RAF regulations, in force at the time, apparently precluded any finding of fault against deceased pilots where the evidence against them was other than watertight. How therefore, could these regulations be openly flouted by a guilty finding without the resulting judgement being set aside in later procedings?
In my view, the Chinook Scandal (yes, scandal) is Britain's Dreyfus Scandal. (In 2000 I wrote to a selection of MPs saying as much).
In brief, Alfred Dreyfus was a captain in the French Army in the late 19th Century who was accused of spying on the basis of papers found in a waste paper basket that contained secret information to which he among others would have had access. He was sent to Devil's Island for 25 years. Very many years later he was pardoned and awarded the 'Legion d' Honour'. As recently as 1986 he was publicly declared innocent by a General of the French Army.
If you wish to look up the circumstances of the Alfred Deyfus affair, it is easily available on the Internet. May I recommend all readers of this thread, do please look it up if only for interest. You will find comparisons with the present case very striking.
In my opinion, what has happened here is that it has been found convenient for certain elements within the RAF high command and certain civilians responsible for the acquisition of the Mk2 Chinook (in its perhaps questionable state of development at that time), to allow these two pilots to 'carry the can' for something for which blame (if blame there should) must certainly rest elsewhere.
The questions about the handling of this case by the various authorities continue to mount. For example, when the matter finally ended up in the House of Lords, why was a whip imposed and at whose request?
Since 'Their Lordships' will almost all have been non aviators, how do they come to be ruling on such a complex technical matter without at least having technically qualified 'amicae curiae' or expert 'assessors' (recruited from some source other than the RAF) available to advise them?
In my opinion, the whole business stinks!
Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook were not a pair of student private pilots on the loose from some low grade FTO: they were highly skilled and experienced special forces pilots and must have been among Britain's best. Thus, it is inconceivable that, specially when carrying such a precious load of pax, they would have breached VFR/IFR low flying rules other than in circumstances of extreme emergency.
The Chinook did not carry the kind of flight recorders and cockpit voice recorders that a civilian aircraft would carry and the two pilots, being killed in the crash, became unavailable to be interrogated on the circumstances of the crash. It is in the very nature of emergencies caused by software (if that is what happened) that they leave no evidence.
Thus, it is impossible to say what happened and therefore impossible to award blame to the pilots under the rules in force in the RAF at that time.
RAF regulations, in force at the time, apparently precluded any finding of fault against deceased pilots where the evidence against them was other than watertight. How therefore, could these regulations be openly flouted by a guilty finding without the resulting judgement being set aside in later procedings?
In my view, the Chinook Scandal (yes, scandal) is Britain's Dreyfus Scandal. (In 2000 I wrote to a selection of MPs saying as much).
In brief, Alfred Dreyfus was a captain in the French Army in the late 19th Century who was accused of spying on the basis of papers found in a waste paper basket that contained secret information to which he among others would have had access. He was sent to Devil's Island for 25 years. Very many years later he was pardoned and awarded the 'Legion d' Honour'. As recently as 1986 he was publicly declared innocent by a General of the French Army.
If you wish to look up the circumstances of the Alfred Deyfus affair, it is easily available on the Internet. May I recommend all readers of this thread, do please look it up if only for interest. You will find comparisons with the present case very striking.
In my opinion, what has happened here is that it has been found convenient for certain elements within the RAF high command and certain civilians responsible for the acquisition of the Mk2 Chinook (in its perhaps questionable state of development at that time), to allow these two pilots to 'carry the can' for something for which blame (if blame there should) must certainly rest elsewhere.
The questions about the handling of this case by the various authorities continue to mount. For example, when the matter finally ended up in the House of Lords, why was a whip imposed and at whose request?
Since 'Their Lordships' will almost all have been non aviators, how do they come to be ruling on such a complex technical matter without at least having technically qualified 'amicae curiae' or expert 'assessors' (recruited from some source other than the RAF) available to advise them?
In my opinion, the whole business stinks!
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 again, Mr Purdey.
You are correct that I am not, nor will be, convinced by the 'official line'. However, the fact that you have an opposing view to me causes no problem. You have your own views and I respect that. I just happen not to agree with them.
I agree that there were several good speeches from both sides of the argument, but surely the fact that two such convincing points of view can be put forward with the same available evidence suggests an element of doubt?
I recall from memory, (so the wording may be different), that some of the technical faults were either simply discounted or classed as highly unlikely. They were never disproved with evidence backing up the decision. Hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever. I think it was ArkRoyal who said in a post quite some time ago that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. I quite agree.
For myself, I will continue to fight for the reputation of two good friends. If you wish to leave matters where they are, again, that is a decision I will respect.
My regards to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
You are correct that I am not, nor will be, convinced by the 'official line'. However, the fact that you have an opposing view to me causes no problem. You have your own views and I respect that. I just happen not to agree with them.
I agree that there were several good speeches from both sides of the argument, but surely the fact that two such convincing points of view can be put forward with the same available evidence suggests an element of doubt?
I recall from memory, (so the wording may be different), that some of the technical faults were either simply discounted or classed as highly unlikely. They were never disproved with evidence backing up the decision. Hardly absolutely no doubt whatsoever. I think it was ArkRoyal who said in a post quite some time ago that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. I quite agree.
For myself, I will continue to fight for the reputation of two good friends. If you wish to leave matters where they are, again, that is a decision I will respect.
My regards to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vindicate the Pilots!
It is a scandal that two of our finest are still being subjected subjected to biased Politics and uninformed and unqualified "Committee" findings even after their deaths in service of our Country.
Their families deserve so much better from a grateful people. No matter the circumstances on the flight deck, Joe Public would be outraged at the Spin on this incident and the families should be given comfort and thanks for their sacrifice, not this level of stress !
It is a scandal that two of our finest are still being subjected subjected to biased Politics and uninformed and unqualified "Committee" findings even after their deaths in service of our Country.
Their families deserve so much better from a grateful people. No matter the circumstances on the flight deck, Joe Public would be outraged at the Spin on this incident and the families should be given comfort and thanks for their sacrifice, not this level of stress !
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
***Press Release from the Mull of Kintyre Group***
9th Anniversary of Chinook Crash to be marked by General Assembly of Church of Scotland debate
On Wednesday 21st May, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will debate the 1994 Chinook crash and decide whether to urge the Government to revisit the case. The debate is expected to take place around 11.30, when the Presbytery of South Argyll will call for the Church to act out of its continuing concern for all the families of those killed in the accident.
The worst military air accident in the United Kingdom during peacetime took the lives of 29 people, including leading members of the Northern Ireland security forces as well as all four crew, on 2nd June 1994. The RAF Board of Inquiry reported inconclusively on the cause of the crash. Controversially, two Air Marshals overturned this Inquiry’s finding and charged the deceased pilots with responsibility for the crash through gross negligence “with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”.
Generated by pastoral concern for the families of all those killed in the crash, the motion, or “Overture”, to the Church’s General Assembly notes the four major inquiries into the accident. Each inquiry has found the Air Marshals’ decision to find the pilots guilty unsound. The most recent of these, the House of Lords Select Committee, concluded unanimously that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that pilot negligence caused the crash. In November 2002, the Government whipped the debate on the Select Committee’s report, and defeated a motion proposed by Lord Chalfont to overturn the verdict against the pilots and finally clear their names.
James Arbuthnot MP, Chairman of the Westminster cross-Party Mull of Kintyre Group, said today:
“That such a good and just body as the Church of Scotland considers this a matter still requiring debate and a satisfactory conclusion after almost nine years is of immense significance. We had hoped the Government might have acted on the conclusions of the Lords Select Committee, but were dismayed at its failure to do so. Surely it must now realize that the campaign to clear the pilots names will continue, and is broadening its support. This is an issue that will not disappear.”
John Cook and Mike Tapper, the fathers of the two pilots killed in the crash said:
“Over the past nine years, Roddy McNidder, the minister at Campbeltown, has remained a firm supporter of both our families and the families of all those killed in this appalling accident. We have watched inquiry after inquiry as they disagree with the only two men who accuse our sons of gross negligence. We continue to hope that the Government will act to overturn this inustice, and so put an end to the suffering we all continue to endure.”
…ends…
Notes for editors
The Church of Scotland is Scotland’s national Church, and one of the largest organizations in the country, tracing its history to the Evangelism of Scotland around 400 AD. It is organized on the basis of “courts”, of which the General Assembly is the highest. 400 ministers, 400 elders, and a small number of deacons meet each May to discuss matters of national concern.
The Right Honourable James Arbuthnot MP is Chairman of the Mull of Kintyre Group, a cross-Party group of MPs and Peers working to overturn the verdict of gross negligence found against the pilots. He is the Conservative Member for North East Hampshire. Shortly after the crash, when serving as a Defence Minister, he became convinced that a grave miscarriage of justice occurred in the condemnation of the pilots. He publicly apologized during a June 2000 debate for supporting the two reviewing officers of the original RAF Board of Inquiry, and has worked ever since to help clear the pilots names.
Kind regards to all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
9th Anniversary of Chinook Crash to be marked by General Assembly of Church of Scotland debate
On Wednesday 21st May, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will debate the 1994 Chinook crash and decide whether to urge the Government to revisit the case. The debate is expected to take place around 11.30, when the Presbytery of South Argyll will call for the Church to act out of its continuing concern for all the families of those killed in the accident.
The worst military air accident in the United Kingdom during peacetime took the lives of 29 people, including leading members of the Northern Ireland security forces as well as all four crew, on 2nd June 1994. The RAF Board of Inquiry reported inconclusively on the cause of the crash. Controversially, two Air Marshals overturned this Inquiry’s finding and charged the deceased pilots with responsibility for the crash through gross negligence “with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”.
Generated by pastoral concern for the families of all those killed in the crash, the motion, or “Overture”, to the Church’s General Assembly notes the four major inquiries into the accident. Each inquiry has found the Air Marshals’ decision to find the pilots guilty unsound. The most recent of these, the House of Lords Select Committee, concluded unanimously that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that pilot negligence caused the crash. In November 2002, the Government whipped the debate on the Select Committee’s report, and defeated a motion proposed by Lord Chalfont to overturn the verdict against the pilots and finally clear their names.
James Arbuthnot MP, Chairman of the Westminster cross-Party Mull of Kintyre Group, said today:
“That such a good and just body as the Church of Scotland considers this a matter still requiring debate and a satisfactory conclusion after almost nine years is of immense significance. We had hoped the Government might have acted on the conclusions of the Lords Select Committee, but were dismayed at its failure to do so. Surely it must now realize that the campaign to clear the pilots names will continue, and is broadening its support. This is an issue that will not disappear.”
John Cook and Mike Tapper, the fathers of the two pilots killed in the crash said:
“Over the past nine years, Roddy McNidder, the minister at Campbeltown, has remained a firm supporter of both our families and the families of all those killed in this appalling accident. We have watched inquiry after inquiry as they disagree with the only two men who accuse our sons of gross negligence. We continue to hope that the Government will act to overturn this inustice, and so put an end to the suffering we all continue to endure.”
…ends…
Notes for editors
The Church of Scotland is Scotland’s national Church, and one of the largest organizations in the country, tracing its history to the Evangelism of Scotland around 400 AD. It is organized on the basis of “courts”, of which the General Assembly is the highest. 400 ministers, 400 elders, and a small number of deacons meet each May to discuss matters of national concern.
The Right Honourable James Arbuthnot MP is Chairman of the Mull of Kintyre Group, a cross-Party group of MPs and Peers working to overturn the verdict of gross negligence found against the pilots. He is the Conservative Member for North East Hampshire. Shortly after the crash, when serving as a Defence Minister, he became convinced that a grave miscarriage of justice occurred in the condemnation of the pilots. He publicly apologized during a June 2000 debate for supporting the two reviewing officers of the original RAF Board of Inquiry, and has worked ever since to help clear the pilots names.
Kind regards to all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Thanks Broomstickpilot and others. We all have our own views on the matter, and never mind Captain Dreyfus, but it seems to me that much of the emotion here is because it is difficult/impossible to accept that two such outstanding pilots could have made such a grave error. And yet the whole history of aviation shows that, yes, even the very best of us can make terrible mistakes. Or do you not think so? Regards. John Purdey.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
Thank you for your message. Forgive me but I fear you have missed the point. You are quite right to say that even the best people can just 'get it wrong', of course they can, but in this case there is DOUBT. Two boards of enquiry found the evidence "inconclusive".
Regulations in force in the RAF at that time precluded any finding of negligence against aircrew that were DEAD and in no position to defend their actions. (It is interesting to note that these regulations were subsequently abolished, presumably so as to make it easier to 'fit up' any conveniently placed aircrew at some future time).
Hence, in my view the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots is grossly improper and has been merely a strategem to enable others to escape blame. It is this gross injustice that inspires emotion.
By the way, don't discount Captain Dreyfus: on the contrary the best way to draw attention to a scandal is to draw embarrassing comparisons to a similar, well known and accepted scandal.
Best regards,
BroomstickPilot
Thank you for your message. Forgive me but I fear you have missed the point. You are quite right to say that even the best people can just 'get it wrong', of course they can, but in this case there is DOUBT. Two boards of enquiry found the evidence "inconclusive".
Regulations in force in the RAF at that time precluded any finding of negligence against aircrew that were DEAD and in no position to defend their actions. (It is interesting to note that these regulations were subsequently abolished, presumably so as to make it easier to 'fit up' any conveniently placed aircrew at some future time).
Hence, in my view the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots is grossly improper and has been merely a strategem to enable others to escape blame. It is this gross injustice that inspires emotion.
By the way, don't discount Captain Dreyfus: on the contrary the best way to draw attention to a scandal is to draw embarrassing comparisons to a similar, well known and accepted scandal.
Best regards,
BroomstickPilot
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Broomstickpilot. Many thanks, and you comments noted. I do not know whether or not you read the various exchanges in this forum several months ago, but if you did you may have seen my principal question in this whole sad business, which is this.
There is no doubt that the aircraft crashed just over 500 yards to starboard of the intended track to the lighthouse waypoint. That meant that the high ground confronting the crew was around 850 feet, rather than the 350 feet that it would have been had they been on track (I do not have the precise figures in front of me here, so please do not quibble about them!).
Their cruise climb settings would have cleared the 350' terrain, but of course they could not clear the 850' terrain. What I do not understand is that neither MOD nor, as far as I can see, did anyone else, lay appropriate emphasis on this central and crucial factor in the equasion.
To those who have heard all this from me before, my apologies; yet no-one has rebutted what I am saying, which is that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. Please tell me what you think of it. Regards.. John Purdey.
There is no doubt that the aircraft crashed just over 500 yards to starboard of the intended track to the lighthouse waypoint. That meant that the high ground confronting the crew was around 850 feet, rather than the 350 feet that it would have been had they been on track (I do not have the precise figures in front of me here, so please do not quibble about them!).
Their cruise climb settings would have cleared the 350' terrain, but of course they could not clear the 850' terrain. What I do not understand is that neither MOD nor, as far as I can see, did anyone else, lay appropriate emphasis on this central and crucial factor in the equasion.
To those who have heard all this from me before, my apologies; yet no-one has rebutted what I am saying, which is that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. Please tell me what you think of it. Regards.. John Purdey.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr. Purdey,
No, I confess I wasn't aware of the very interesting point you have made, nor do I feel qualified to comment on it as,
a) I am not a military pilot, I'm a civil pilot, (but one who cares about how our mil pilots are treated).
b) I am not a helicopter pilot, I'm a fixed wing pilot.
c) I don't know the terrain and can only imagine from descriptions what weather conditions were actually like on that day.
As such, I do not know enough about the following.
1. RAF Operational Procedures, especially as applied to security sensitive passenger flights.
2. Why a helicopter, of all things, was used for that particular trip anyway. (Was there a security reason)?
3. The Chinook's performance envelope and why it was flying so low along route. (Perhaps there was a good security reason).
4. The accuracy and reliability of navigational equipment carried by an RAF Chinook.
In addition, I don't think anyone yet knows the whole truth about that FADEC!
Thus, I am unable to assess the significance of the extremely interesting point you have made. But surely, this point should have been picked up and investigated by the AAIB: if not, why not? Have they ever been asked why they discounted the significance of this point?
My point, however, is a LEGAL one rather than one of airmanship. Here is a case of doubt. Two boards of enquiry found the evidence inconclusive. Under RAF regulations in force at the time, Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook, having died in the accident, were not available for questioning and therefore should automatically have been given the benefit of that doubt.
Two air marshalls chose to ignore the verdict of the second board of enquiry and declare the pilots negligent, seemingly without any evidence at their disposal additional to that considered by the second board and, I should have thought, in blatant breach of RAF Law.
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that if you are senior enough in the RAF, you can get away with anything with impunity.
Best wishes,
BroomstickPilot
No, I confess I wasn't aware of the very interesting point you have made, nor do I feel qualified to comment on it as,
a) I am not a military pilot, I'm a civil pilot, (but one who cares about how our mil pilots are treated).
b) I am not a helicopter pilot, I'm a fixed wing pilot.
c) I don't know the terrain and can only imagine from descriptions what weather conditions were actually like on that day.
As such, I do not know enough about the following.
1. RAF Operational Procedures, especially as applied to security sensitive passenger flights.
2. Why a helicopter, of all things, was used for that particular trip anyway. (Was there a security reason)?
3. The Chinook's performance envelope and why it was flying so low along route. (Perhaps there was a good security reason).
4. The accuracy and reliability of navigational equipment carried by an RAF Chinook.
In addition, I don't think anyone yet knows the whole truth about that FADEC!
Thus, I am unable to assess the significance of the extremely interesting point you have made. But surely, this point should have been picked up and investigated by the AAIB: if not, why not? Have they ever been asked why they discounted the significance of this point?
My point, however, is a LEGAL one rather than one of airmanship. Here is a case of doubt. Two boards of enquiry found the evidence inconclusive. Under RAF regulations in force at the time, Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook, having died in the accident, were not available for questioning and therefore should automatically have been given the benefit of that doubt.
Two air marshalls chose to ignore the verdict of the second board of enquiry and declare the pilots negligent, seemingly without any evidence at their disposal additional to that considered by the second board and, I should have thought, in blatant breach of RAF Law.
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that if you are senior enough in the RAF, you can get away with anything with impunity.
Best wishes,
BroomstickPilot
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Broomstickpilot. I have to say that you are contributing to all the heat surrounding this topic, but not to the light. With great respect I suggest you read through the earlier contributions on the Chinook tragedy. As you yourself say, you were not aware of the facts concerning the track/intended route of the aircraft, nor of the significance of the terrain height difference between the two. But thanks for your interest. Regards. John Purdey
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Purdey,
Forgive me but you do appear to be flying in infra-red goggles in broad daylight, and thus you are perceiving only heat.
I note that you haven't commented on the LEGAL point that I have made. I should be genuinely interested to hear your views on that.
Best wishes,
BroomstickPilot
Forgive me but you do appear to be flying in infra-red goggles in broad daylight, and thus you are perceiving only heat.
I note that you haven't commented on the LEGAL point that I have made. I should be genuinely interested to hear your views on that.
Best wishes,
BroomstickPilot
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 again, Mr Purdey.
I know you and I have had this debate before, but as it has been raised again, I'm happy to rejoin.
I think, initially, to use your analogy of heat and light the only thing surrounding this issue is, in fact, a heathaze - if you will a blurring of fact and speculation.
You cannot say that the crew were not where they thought they were because you don't know what they were thinking. I accept that the aircraft was right of track, but can you, or anyone else, explain why a waypoint change was made, but there was no change in direction of flight? I have no idea myself.
BroomstickPilot,
The regulations were changed after this accident, removing the requirement of Boards of Inquiry to apportion responsibility (or blame, if you will). This was to ensure that the main focus returned to flight safety issues.
You are correct that the regulations in place at the time appear to have been broken - i.e. there was (and still is) doubt as to the accident.
Mr Purdey offers a convincing argument if you accept it in isolation. However, once you introduce elements of doubt, there appears to be a reluctance to acknowledge these doubts. That said, it's his opinion, and I don't have a problem with that. As I have said before, I just don't happen to agree with him.
As a follow on from a previous post, you may all like to hear that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland unanimously supported the view of the campaign. They are writing to the Prime Minister to request he overturn the unsustainable verdict.
My regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I know you and I have had this debate before, but as it has been raised again, I'm happy to rejoin.
I think, initially, to use your analogy of heat and light the only thing surrounding this issue is, in fact, a heathaze - if you will a blurring of fact and speculation.
You cannot say that the crew were not where they thought they were because you don't know what they were thinking. I accept that the aircraft was right of track, but can you, or anyone else, explain why a waypoint change was made, but there was no change in direction of flight? I have no idea myself.
BroomstickPilot,
The regulations were changed after this accident, removing the requirement of Boards of Inquiry to apportion responsibility (or blame, if you will). This was to ensure that the main focus returned to flight safety issues.
You are correct that the regulations in place at the time appear to have been broken - i.e. there was (and still is) doubt as to the accident.
Mr Purdey offers a convincing argument if you accept it in isolation. However, once you introduce elements of doubt, there appears to be a reluctance to acknowledge these doubts. That said, it's his opinion, and I don't have a problem with that. As I have said before, I just don't happen to agree with him.
As a follow on from a previous post, you may all like to hear that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland unanimously supported the view of the campaign. They are writing to the Prime Minister to request he overturn the unsustainable verdict.
My regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey
THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, who knows?
Your theory, if I follow you, is that the crew thought they were on direct track over the lighthouse and could therefore clear the high ground by adopting a standard cruise climb on track.
That is possible., but please explain why they turned right at waypoint change towards higher ground? Also consider that there is evidence of the possibility (not refuted, as far as I am aware) that the crew might have thought they were right of track as it was (ref. Sheriff's report).
However you look at it, there is substantial doubt about what happened and why it happened.
Regards, TAC
THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, who knows?
Your theory, if I follow you, is that the crew thought they were on direct track over the lighthouse and could therefore clear the high ground by adopting a standard cruise climb on track.
That is possible., but please explain why they turned right at waypoint change towards higher ground? Also consider that there is evidence of the possibility (not refuted, as far as I am aware) that the crew might have thought they were right of track as it was (ref. Sheriff's report).
However you look at it, there is substantial doubt about what happened and why it happened.
Regards, TAC
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
OK Fellas, we could go on like this forever, but it will do no good. Of course there are two aspects to this tragedy and its aftermath; the cause of the crash, and the legal arguments about the degree of responsibility of the crew. It was, you remember, the legal aspects that the HofL Select Commitee was asked to examine. They made very clear in the very first paras of their report that they were not trying to establish the cause of the accident , but merely the legal justification for the verdict of 'gross negligence'. I am not a lawyer (thank heavens!) but a professional Service airman with a certain amount of experience. One of the complications in all the discussions on this topic has been the overlap between those two aspects.
If we focus on the airmanship aspects, I maintain that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were a quarter of a mile to the right of their intended track, and were thus facing a terrain that was (about) 500 feet higher than they expected. What could be clearer than that?
As to the comment by TheAeroCo, many thanks, but what makes you think that they turned right? They were already off to the right of track for two reasons; the waypoint had been misplotted, and the nav system/s had slipped even further to the right. Thinking they were on track (and there was no indication otherwise in those very poor weather conditions) they ressed straight on. For heaven's sake fellas, consider the facts, and give speculation a rest. With all good wishes to all those interested in this sad tale, John Purdey.
If we focus on the airmanship aspects, I maintain that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were a quarter of a mile to the right of their intended track, and were thus facing a terrain that was (about) 500 feet higher than they expected. What could be clearer than that?
As to the comment by TheAeroCo, many thanks, but what makes you think that they turned right? They were already off to the right of track for two reasons; the waypoint had been misplotted, and the nav system/s had slipped even further to the right. Thinking they were on track (and there was no indication otherwise in those very poor weather conditions) they ressed straight on. For heaven's sake fellas, consider the facts, and give speculation a rest. With all good wishes to all those interested in this sad tale, 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 All,
this is a link to an article in The Scotsman, following the vote by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
The Scotsman Article by Andrew Denholm
By all accounts, this was an extraordinary meeting. Concern for all the families of those killed in the crash led the Argyll Presbytery to take the accident to the Church's mightiest body, the General Assembly. At 3.30pm on Wednesday 22 May, the debate took place on whether the Church should ask the Government at Westminster to revisit the case. Not only was this voted in unanimously, but the entire Assembly stood for the vote out of strength of emotion for the case. Mike and Hazel Tapper were in the audience, and were greeted by a number of the Assembly's elders who repeated how deeply the matter has affected the Church, Scotland, and the country as a whole.
The outcome is that every Westminster MP, and every Scottish MP will receive a letter from the General Assembly about the debate, and urging them to press for a re-examination of the matter. This will be followed by the Church and Nation Committee maintaining a 'watching brief' over the next year leading up to the 10th anniversary to continue pressing the Government to look again at the injustice done.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
this is a link to an article in The Scotsman, following the vote by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
The Scotsman Article by Andrew Denholm
By all accounts, this was an extraordinary meeting. Concern for all the families of those killed in the crash led the Argyll Presbytery to take the accident to the Church's mightiest body, the General Assembly. At 3.30pm on Wednesday 22 May, the debate took place on whether the Church should ask the Government at Westminster to revisit the case. Not only was this voted in unanimously, but the entire Assembly stood for the vote out of strength of emotion for the case. Mike and Hazel Tapper were in the audience, and were greeted by a number of the Assembly's elders who repeated how deeply the matter has affected the Church, Scotland, and the country as a whole.
The outcome is that every Westminster MP, and every Scottish MP will receive a letter from the General Assembly about the debate, and urging them to press for a re-examination of the matter. This will be followed by the Church and Nation Committee maintaining a 'watching brief' over the next year leading up to the 10th anniversary to continue pressing the Government to look again at the injustice done.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE"
Since the crew are sadly no longer around to defend themselves, you're implication that you 'KNOW' what the crew were thinking is rather distasteful. If I may say, it is characteristic of the arrogant approach of a now discredited few.
For the record, neither you, nor I, nor anyone this side of the Pearly Gates 'KNOW' ANYTHING about the thought processes occuring in the cockpit of ZD576! (spiritualists excluded!)
Infact, we 'KNOW' virtually nothing of what was occuring at all!
You're suggestion that they could have contemplated a cruise climb, 'planning' to clear high ground by around 500', whilst 'APPARENTLY' in cloud, is bizarre.
Are you suggesting you would have considered such a course of action?
This 'off track', 'misplotting' garbage is (in my opinion) a complete red herring.
Since the crew are sadly no longer around to defend themselves, you're implication that you 'KNOW' what the crew were thinking is rather distasteful. If I may say, it is characteristic of the arrogant approach of a now discredited few.
For the record, neither you, nor I, nor anyone this side of the Pearly Gates 'KNOW' ANYTHING about the thought processes occuring in the cockpit of ZD576! (spiritualists excluded!)
Infact, we 'KNOW' virtually nothing of what was occuring at all!
You're suggestion that they could have contemplated a cruise climb, 'planning' to clear high ground by around 500', whilst 'APPARENTLY' in cloud, is bizarre.
Are you suggesting you would have considered such a course of action?
This 'off track', 'misplotting' garbage is (in my opinion) a complete red herring.
John Purdey,
Hello again. Could you please clarify something for me?
You say that they had intended to cruise climb to clear ground which they believed to be at 350’. This implies that you think that they would have been happy, at 850’, to clear it by 500’ in IMC and much too close to higher ground for legal flight under IFR. All this time they were depending on their Supertans and altimeter which itself depended on the accuracy of the forecast QNH.
Have correctly understood your theory?
Thanks, P1
Hello again. Could you please clarify something for me?
You say that they had intended to cruise climb to clear ground which they believed to be at 350’. This implies that you think that they would have been happy, at 850’, to clear it by 500’ in IMC and much too close to higher ground for legal flight under IFR. All this time they were depending on their Supertans and altimeter which itself depended on the accuracy of the forecast QNH.
Have correctly understood your theory?
Thanks, P1
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Tandemrotor.
Thanks for your contribution, but emotional expressions such as 'garbage' do not really get us any further. Do I really think that the crew entered a cruise climb in bad weather, hoping to clear high ground by,say, 500 feet? Yes I do, and they were not the first very experienced aircrew, nor I'm sorry to say will they be the last, to do such a thing.
I do not like it any more than you, but that is what happened. If there is any other explanation that fits all the facts we have yet to hear it.
I have had my say, and apart from waiting to hear from Brian Dixon on the significance he attaches to the unanswered RT call he mentioned earlier, I shall keep quiet until something entirely new emerges - if it ever does. Regards. John Purdey
Thanks for your contribution, but emotional expressions such as 'garbage' do not really get us any further. Do I really think that the crew entered a cruise climb in bad weather, hoping to clear high ground by,say, 500 feet? Yes I do, and they were not the first very experienced aircrew, nor I'm sorry to say will they be the last, to do such a thing.
I do not like it any more than you, but that is what happened. If there is any other explanation that fits all the facts we have yet to hear it.
I have had my say, and apart from waiting to hear from Brian Dixon on the significance he attaches to the unanswered RT call he mentioned earlier, I shall keep quiet until something entirely new emerges - if it ever does. Regards. John Purdey