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 8th Sep 2010, 16:40
  #6761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
The previous announcement was that Lord Philip would conduct the review. I'm not sure a retired Judge and a Barrister are the same thing, so perhaps LP has been replaced or declined? Still, affords us time to fine tune submissions.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2010, 16:47
  #6762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 48
Posts: 1,761
I'm guessing those responsible for the original BOI have just retired?
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2010, 17:13
  #6763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 198
fish Review Announcement

Irrespective of who does this review to finally have an independent inquiry by someone without previous experience or bias is surely the best result anyone could have hoped for.

I am sure, however, that the usual suspects will still ply the 'pilots definitely at fault' mantra to the bitter end of it.
Si Clik is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2010, 19:23
  #6764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 818
The Daily Telegraph report says
During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Clegg said: "I am pleased to be able to confirm today that we will be holding an independent review of the evidence on the Mull of Kintyre disaster and I hope the review will be welcomed by the families of those who died in this tragic accident.
"To ensure its complete independence, the review will be conducted by a respected lawyer who is independent of the Government and who has not previously expressed a view on the disaster.
"The reviewer and the precise terms of reference will be announced soon."

I thought the UK government already announced a few weeks ago there would be a review and it would be conducted by a retired Scottish judge, Lord Philip.


Bronx is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2010, 20:16
  #6765 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 70
Posts: 3,394
I'm guessing those responsible for the original BOI have just retired?
... not quite MGD ...

.... Board Pres about to take on a new, fairly senior job .......
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2010, 07:45
  #6766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 35
Independent Examination Of The Facts

Quote: .... Board Pres about to take on a new, fairly senior job .......

Comment: Was issue not the conclusion of the BOI, but the decision of Air Marshals to overrule it?
207592 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2010, 09:05
  #6767 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 70
Posts: 3,394
The "Airships" are of course long retired 207592 - I was thinking of the recent posts about the influence of mobile 'phones and similar, which the Pres had ruled out ....

..... and of course technically, the BOI isn't complete until the Airships add their dit, so it's not overturning conclusions, it's disagreeing with recommendations.

Pedantic I know, but wait 'til the lawyers get hold of it in the Independent Inquiry - which is of course a good thing; whatever it concludes. But they are the pedantrymeisters par excellence.

My fear is that both "sides" are so entrenched, that they will welcome the Independent Inquiry, until it doesn't agree with them (it can't agree with them both!) and they will then rubbish it.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2010, 12:35
  #6768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
teeteringhead:
.
.... and of course technically, the BOI isn't complete until the Airships add their dit, so it's not overturning conclusions, it's disagreeing with recommendations.
Not pedantic at all but a key point well made as we approach the apparent culmination of this long frustrating journey, especially for those who have trodden it from the very beginning.
This is the third great PPRuNe Airworthiness related fatal accident thread to approach that point, but the very first to start and by far the most significant. It is not merely the scale of the tragedy, by far the worst RAF fatal aircraft accident, nor the longevity of the campaign to restore the reputations of the deceased pilots, as the real prize within its grasp is to save countless lives in the future by ensuring the restoration of UK Military Airworthiness.
The other two campaigns succeeded within the limited scope that was set. In the case of the Hercules it was to fit ESF to the unprotected fuel tanks that could mean that an aircraft could be brought down with a single small arms round. In the case of the Nimrod Mk2 it unfortunately meant its premature retirement due to inherent airworthiness problems. Now at last we have the chance to move beyond such single type solutions to a generic one that provides for enhanced safety for all military airfleets. Haddon-Cave was supposed to have achieved that with the Nimrod Report but unfortunately failed to do so, for the MAA that resulted is not independent as claimed and cannot achieve the root and branch reform needed until it is.
The Mull Review must succeed where the Nimrod Report failed, and at last grasp the nettle by recommending the MAA be moved without the MOD and be completely free of it. It will take many years to repair the malevolent vandalism wrought over two decades and it can only really begin when the MAA lives up to its name, that is become truly an Authority. In parallel to that the MAAIB must also be independent, both of the MOD and the MAA. If all that can be achieved then the tragic loss of 29 lives on 2 June 1994 will not have been entirely in vain.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2010, 15:42
  #6769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Chug

Thank you for your beautifully written and comprehensive summary of where we are now and of the long-term importance of the latest Review. Sadly, I agree with every word you have written. What foul slurs that "malevolent vandalism wrought over two decades" has brought upon our once-great Service and those who serve in it.

It would be a wonderful tribute to not just the pilots but everyone lost on the Mull if we could eventually see a new and fully independent MAA and MAAIB arise out of those ashes.
Vertico is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2010, 19:35
  #6770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
With the recent announcement that there will be a new inquiry into 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash to be conducted by an “independent lawyer” it is to be hoped that finally we will see justice done, and an end to the disingenuousness and obfuscation exhibited on this forum by the ardent supporters of the “Airships” responsible for this travesty of justice.
HectorusRex is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 08:56
  #6771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Miscarriage of justice? - Yes.
Avoidable accident? - Yes.
Transit altitude too low? - Probably not.
Transit speed too fast? - Probably not.
IMC from before WP change until just before final impact? Probably not.
Slopes of Mull covered by low, hugging cloud but shape and position of hill and lighthouse discernable? - Probably.
Intentionally flew into Mull? - No.
Flypast of landing zone? - Unlikely.
Evidence at crash site? - Very little.
Actual Cause(s) of Crash? - Impossible to know with any certainty.
Engine Control fault? - Possible (recent history).
Flight Control restriction? - Possible (recent history).
Electro-Magnetic Interference with aircraft systems? - Possible.
Human Error by crew? - Possible but not certain.
Gross negligence by crew? - Unlikely and impossible to prove, with no doubt whatsoever.
Aircraft design 'immature'? - Yes, with no doubt whatsoever.
Aircraft & its release compliant with airworthiness regs? - No, with no doubt whatsoever.
Negligence/Incompetence by Air/Staff Officers? - Yes.
Other aircraft and systems similarly compromised? - Yes, but total number unknown.

Total Independence of MAA/MAAIB - the only way forward.... and quick!

Last edited by flipster; 12th Sep 2010 at 07:55.
flipster is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 11:46
  #6772 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
What a summary! Send it to the 'barrister'/Lord Philip. He need look at very little else.
BOAC is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 17:47
  #6773 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Agreed BEagle except for:

Too low? - Probably not.
Not sure I follow such a simple statement - it did hit the ground.
John Farley is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 17:53
  #6774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,551
Not me, John!

I have no idea why the accident occurred - and nor has anyone else. With absolutely no doubt whatsoever....
BEagle is online now  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 17:56
  #6775 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Sorry mate I meant BOAC. I should be ploughed under.
John Farley is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 18:34
  #6776 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
No - you'd only 'pop up' again in the spring

I took the 'too low' to refer to some posters who have suggested the heli was flying too low en-route. I concur that hitting the ground is a bit 'low'.
BOAC is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2010, 20:52
  #6777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
John,

I suspect that flipsters "too low" and "too fast" were referring to Bill Wratten's published view that the helicopter was travelling too low and too fast under the conditions "at waypoint change". i.e within 1.6Km of a fogbank over high ground. That, as far as I understand it, is the essence of the RO's argument. He also has argued that anything which may have happened after that is not relevant to that decision. Anyone remember his motorbike analogy?

It is that judgement which the Campaign are trying to reverse.

I find it interesting that, when two F15s did something similar, the RAF tried to blame their own ATCO.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2010, 10:13
  #6778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Good post Flip. I have thought for some time, that you only need to focus on one aspect. Just as in Hercules XV 179 and Nimrod XV230, the Chinook on this fateful day, was not airworthy and not fit for purpose; case closed.

I have been re-reading the woeful case of Spot's Court Martial stitch up, WRT the crash of the two F15s, in which an attempt was made to fit him up. Spot's QC, Mike Jones, elicited that none of the eyewitnesses had ever been interviewed by the RAF, USAF or any aircraft accident investigator. They had all made statements to the Grampian Police and all authorities were aware of the existence of such statements.

The RAF Board of Inquiry also knew of the existence of the statements and chose not to pursue the evidence through interview. One can only presume this was deliberate.

Richard Dawson, president of the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (Gatco), said outside the court: "The prosecution did not present the evidence that was available. Had that evidence been used by the prosecution from the outset, there is every likelihood that this court martial would never have taken place."

I look forward to justice finally being served in the case of ZD576. I also look forward to Wratten giving his evidence, hopefully, in person and explaining why the lack of airworthiness was overlooked in favour of laying all blame on the pilots. Let's hope there will be a public hearing..

Last edited by nigegilb; 11th Sep 2010 at 10:56.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2010, 04:15
  #6779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,265
Mike Tapper was on Radio 4 the other day, talking about the decision to hold an independent review. This thread has become inpenetrable to me now, but suffice to say, I hope the lads get a fair hearing now and that if there is any rot, those involved get well and truly De La Billière'd (Dirty Lying B*stard).
Al R is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2010, 07:48
  #6780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Pulse 1 - Correct! Summary edited accordingly.

Last edited by flipster; 12th Sep 2010 at 08:00.
flipster 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.