Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Are you suggesting that honourable Air Rank Officers would conspire to unjustly besmirch the reputations of two deceased junior officers to cover up an alleged scandal concerning the organised suborning of Military Airworthiness?
Cover Up – Attempt to conceal wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information.
Many thanks to the current junior MoD staffs who did their duty by providing the written evidence under FoI, despite numerous previous staffs (the together bit) denying its existence (the conceal bit).
And congratulations to the other (more senior) staffs who continued to deny the existence of the evidence, just as it was popping through the letter box. That really did bring a smile to our faces. Excellent confirmation of what JP is saying. That’s the trouble with conspiring to cover up – it involves lying and it is always easier to tell the truth, because eventually someone will insist on it and spoil the plan.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the culprits will be interviewed by Lord Philip. After all, they weren’t interviewed by Haddon-Cave; but he still got the basic facts right.
By the way JP, there is debate at to whether or not this a "serious offence". The RAF and Ministers say no (but they are just judging their own cases). The Civil Service Code says yes. We're hoping the Cabinet Secretary and Civil Service Commissioners will take a close look. You and I agree on one thing, I'm glad to say!
Or are you postulating they were responding to the rad alt??
When asked to provide details of both fault and defect investigations (two entirely different things) MoD conspired (!) to claim no knowledge, thereby concealing (!) vital information on systemic airworthiness process failures.
Ah, AN/APN198 Radar Altimeter. Now that is a piece of kit with a chequered history, to say the least.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem rotor
Thank you.
I said earlier -
Is that so hard to follow? Not baiting or "bating" - purely the view from here.
Seldom
Not what I said - but never mind.
Indulge your childish 'crab bating' elsewhere. People died, grow up! This is not a lightweight debate. Discuss the evidence, (if you are aware of the detail!) or be taken for a cerebrally challenged troll!
I said earlier -
I am also of the opinion as a bit of a pragmatist that to believe that this aircraft flew quite happily across the sea and then somehow a fault - undisclosed - hurled it into the hillside is not believable at any level.
Seldom
Almost the same sort of difference as rather stupidly subscribing to the mantra that because those on the mull were in less than 10 meters vis the Chinook must be experiencing the same.
Last edited by bast0n; 1st Dec 2010 at 14:49. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tuc. I did not say it; I was quoting Chug2. But I think we agree that to engage in such a conspiracy, if it existed, was indeed a criminal offence.
Where ,by the way, are these junior folk who you say revealed the falsehoods? Names please. Regards JP
Where ,by the way, are these junior folk who you say revealed the falsehoods? Names please. Regards JP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn
I asked you to discuss the evidence, but all you have done yet again, is repeated your 'opinion', based on... well, not very much apparently.
I therefore feel satisfied to regard you in the terms I previously used.
Thank you.
I asked you to discuss the evidence, but all you have done yet again, is repeated your 'opinion', based on... well, not very much apparently.
I therefore feel satisfied to regard you in the terms I previously used.
Thank you.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
The evidence has been chewed to death on this thread with no positive outcome one way or the other. That's why I hold the pragmatist view. I have read it all - both sides - from the beginning and what.....................?
The argument goes on, to what end? There is no new evidence that I know of so you can have a view or not. If you wish not to - well fine - but why knock others that do?
His Lordship will have to make a descision based upon all the evidence available. Why cannot others?
I asked you to discuss the evidence, but all you have done yet again, is repeated your 'opinion', based on... well, not very much apparently.
The argument goes on, to what end? There is no new evidence that I know of so you can have a view or not. If you wish not to - well fine - but why knock others that do?
His Lordship will have to make a descision based upon all the evidence available. Why cannot others?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston,
All you have to say is.
1. I strongly believe Aircrew Error is the most likely cause.
2. I accept that the evidence is insufficient to rule out Negligence or Technical Defect.
Then throw away your spade.
All you have to say is.
1. I strongly believe Aircrew Error is the most likely cause.
2. I accept that the evidence is insufficient to rule out Negligence or Technical Defect.
Then throw away your spade.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His Lordship will have to make a descision based upon all the evidence available.
For that reason I hope he comes down firmly on one side or the other. Either the pilots have been rightly found guilty, according to the required standard of proof, or this was effectively a miscarriage of (military) justice.
Of course I hope he goes further, and agrees with a number of his eminent colleagues in the judiciary who have already reviewed this case. As well as senior politicians of all persuasions. They have effectively declared that, on the basis of the absence of 'hard' evidence, it is impossible to say with any certainty, what caused this tragic accident.
Once that principle has been established, I shall be absolutely delighted for you, cazatou, john purdey, old uncle tom cobley and all (from your neck of the woods?) to hold whatever opinion you wish. Knowing it is only that: Your opinion.
Until that time, all I can do is to 'encourage' people to stick to the 'facts', and appreciate their severe limitations. I owe at least that to my dearest friend!
Enough?
Thank you.
Let right be done.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Dec 2010 at 17:04.
Where ,by the way, are these junior folk who you say revealed the falsehoods? Names please.
Notice "Junior", not "Senior".
I assume that means you already know the seniors.
The bullying ethos of going after juniors who did their duty rather rings a bell.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
TUC, do come off it! It was you who said at 7222 "Many thanks to the current junior MoD staffs who did their duty by providing the written evidence under FoI. So please let us have the names, if necessary by a PM. JP
Caz
We all know what the Board said. It is what they didn't say (or ask) that is important (in addition to the Rad Alt Tx/Rx being faulty and defective).
Tell me someone, do we now have adequate test equipment to carry out an SST?
Are the APs up to date yet, or amended to include, for example, a test to determine the system's ability to withstand and recover from a power interrupt? (Noting the evidence the Board were not permitted to hear about continual power interrupts in the Mk2 electrical system). In my day, the Power Interrupt Units lay unused because there was no AP to tell you how to use or fix them; and MoD have admitted the necessary contract didn't exist.
Is there a training course yet for 2nd/3rd line technicians, or is it still "Have a bash and never mind if the system is calibrated wrongly" (as ZD576's was). You see, informing pilots of range from a quite hard object wasn't considered important enough by AMSO.
Dare I say it - all basic airworthiness components.
We all know what the Board said. It is what they didn't say (or ask) that is important (in addition to the Rad Alt Tx/Rx being faulty and defective).
Tell me someone, do we now have adequate test equipment to carry out an SST?
Are the APs up to date yet, or amended to include, for example, a test to determine the system's ability to withstand and recover from a power interrupt? (Noting the evidence the Board were not permitted to hear about continual power interrupts in the Mk2 electrical system). In my day, the Power Interrupt Units lay unused because there was no AP to tell you how to use or fix them; and MoD have admitted the necessary contract didn't exist.
Is there a training course yet for 2nd/3rd line technicians, or is it still "Have a bash and never mind if the system is calibrated wrongly" (as ZD576's was). You see, informing pilots of range from a quite hard object wasn't considered important enough by AMSO.
Dare I say it - all basic airworthiness components.
JP
Do come off it. Given MoD have freely admitted information was concealed (hard to deny it when it has been made public under FoI, or was that forgery), then if there was no conspiracy (as you claim) you must be saying only one man was responsible. And as Hansard records who issued the Release to Service which did not contain vital safety information, that narrows it down somewhat.
Name please. Or, to avoid upsetting my friend Beagle, just give us the post title. Then step back and see if he's happy taking sole blame. I'm not sure he'll be happy at you highlighting his role.
Do come off it. Given MoD have freely admitted information was concealed (hard to deny it when it has been made public under FoI, or was that forgery), then if there was no conspiracy (as you claim) you must be saying only one man was responsible. And as Hansard records who issued the Release to Service which did not contain vital safety information, that narrows it down somewhat.
Name please. Or, to avoid upsetting my friend Beagle, just give us the post title. Then step back and see if he's happy taking sole blame. I'm not sure he'll be happy at you highlighting his role.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the first time in over a decade I'm getting a bit tired of this endless and destructive ping-pong (dare I say willy-waving?). Trying to clamber out of the various rabbit holes, I think it is time to take a step back and look at the core argument.
The MOD found Tapper and Cook Grossly Negligent. By their own rules, there had to have been no doubt whatsoever in order to reach this assessment. It is clear, even to a simpleton like me, that this criteria was not met. End of story. All the other stuff that has emerged is a sideshow, albeit with some very important issues. There are characters on this forum who choose to discuss the issue in a black or white fashion; innocent or guilty. The reality is far more grey and, by the rules applicable at the time, grey = innocent.
The MOD found Tapper and Cook Grossly Negligent. By their own rules, there had to have been no doubt whatsoever in order to reach this assessment. It is clear, even to a simpleton like me, that this criteria was not met. End of story. All the other stuff that has emerged is a sideshow, albeit with some very important issues. There are characters on this forum who choose to discuss the issue in a black or white fashion; innocent or guilty. The reality is far more grey and, by the rules applicable at the time, grey = innocent.
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 2nd Dec 2010 at 06:52. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows etc
Absolutely - of Gross negligence.
PS if they were in VMC what has the rad alt to do with anything?
The reality is far more grey and, by the rules applicable at the time, grey = innocent.
PS if they were in VMC what has the rad alt to do with anything?
Well said, larger cows. It seems that our regular contributors are more concerned about scoring petty points from each other, rather than concentrating on the injustice of the verdict of gross negligence. Without the evidence to support all the figments of their imaginations there has to be doubt in that verdict.
You see, informing pilots of range from a quite hard object wasn't considered important enough by AMSO.
I note from the Argyll News (see Argyll News: Independent Review of evidence in 1995 Kintyre Chinook crash to be held in private? :Argyll,Kintyre,Chinook crash,independent review, | For Argyll ) that a certain former Air Member for Supply and Organisation had the following to say on 8 Sep 2010:
Nick Clegg today announced an independent review, to be undertaken by a barrister; which differs somewhat from the previous announcement that Lord Philip would conduct it.
Nevertheless, one hopes he is tasked with assessing ALL the evidence, not just that which received a casual glance in 1994 or, very importantly, that which was suppressed by ordering the senior test pilot not to speak.
In particular of course, he must assess the impact of the Assistant Chief of the Air Staffs stating (to the RAF) the aircraft was airworthy, but at the same time withholding the fact that MoD’s own airworthiness experts at Boscombe Down had stated, categorically, it was NOT airworthy. That, in fact, the Safety Critical Software that managed the engine fuel computers was “positively dangerous”.
This act of omission is a very serious offence.
To quote Hansard “ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C B****ll”.
Nevertheless, one hopes he is tasked with assessing ALL the evidence, not just that which received a casual glance in 1994 or, very importantly, that which was suppressed by ordering the senior test pilot not to speak.
In particular of course, he must assess the impact of the Assistant Chief of the Air Staffs stating (to the RAF) the aircraft was airworthy, but at the same time withholding the fact that MoD’s own airworthiness experts at Boscombe Down had stated, categorically, it was NOT airworthy. That, in fact, the Safety Critical Software that managed the engine fuel computers was “positively dangerous”.
This act of omission is a very serious offence.
To quote Hansard “ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C B****ll”.
Beagle
Interesting, but I was speaking collectively, not of an individual. Although I suppose policies are issued in the name of AMSO himself and one imagines he studies, accepts and approves their impact. It was AMSO policy from 1988-on to withhold funding for those aspects of airworthiness I mention. That policy would have had to be developed the previous year ('87) as it was quite a comprehensive document. The resultant problems were, I believe, sufficient to introduce doubt in this case - which is all I can reasonably aim to do as I don't know exactly what happened on 2nd June 1994. This root cause was not addressed by the BoI, but they did mention, many times, the effect on Front Line. And most of Boscombe's concerns expressed in 1993 correspondence can be traced directly to that policy.
Interesting, but I was speaking collectively, not of an individual. Although I suppose policies are issued in the name of AMSO himself and one imagines he studies, accepts and approves their impact. It was AMSO policy from 1988-on to withhold funding for those aspects of airworthiness I mention. That policy would have had to be developed the previous year ('87) as it was quite a comprehensive document. The resultant problems were, I believe, sufficient to introduce doubt in this case - which is all I can reasonably aim to do as I don't know exactly what happened on 2nd June 1994. This root cause was not addressed by the BoI, but they did mention, many times, the effect on Front Line. And most of Boscombe's concerns expressed in 1993 correspondence can be traced directly to that policy.