Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buff Hoon getting his deserts?
Perhaps the current debacle involving the MoD, The BBC, and Dr David Kelly may just bring his due deserts to the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon?
[URL] ]Kelly felt betrayed by MoD
[URL] ]Kelly felt betrayed by MoD
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
If you are implying what you appear to be implying then I trust that I will have your support in trying to get the pension of an ACM rather than a Spec Aircrew Flt Lt.
You could, of course, have read my first post on the original thread more carefully.
If you are implying what you appear to be implying then I trust that I will have your support in trying to get the pension of an ACM rather than a Spec Aircrew Flt Lt.
You could, of course, have read my first post on the original thread more carefully.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
k52
and had you been more familiar with this case, you would have been more accurate with your assertions!
From where were you quoting the assessment of their abilities?
Or did you just make it up?
and had you been more familiar with this case, you would have been more accurate with your assertions!
From where were you quoting the assessment of their abilities?
Or did you just make it up?
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,
just to let you know that the campaign continues, although things are a little quiet due to the summer break in the HoC.
For my part, I continue to make enquiries regarding the last transmission from ZD576 and why the call went unanswered.
Mr Purdey,
welcome back to the thread. Why the apparrent change of stance with regard your last post to K52? He is of the same opinion of you - that the verdict should stand. You now appear to be attacking his position.
I have stated that although I respect K52's right to his decision, I don't happen to agree with it. You, on the other hand, appear to be out to cause mischief.
Please don't think I want this to develop into a slanging match because that is the furthest thing I have in mind (Haven't done so in 9 years, don't intend to start now). I'm just interested as to why you now choose to taunt someone with the same viewpoint as yourself.
My regards to all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
just to let you know that the campaign continues, although things are a little quiet due to the summer break in the HoC.
For my part, I continue to make enquiries regarding the last transmission from ZD576 and why the call went unanswered.
Mr Purdey,
welcome back to the thread. Why the apparrent change of stance with regard your last post to K52? He is of the same opinion of you - that the verdict should stand. You now appear to be attacking his position.
I have stated that although I respect K52's right to his decision, I don't happen to agree with it. You, on the other hand, appear to be out to cause mischief.
Please don't think I want this to develop into a slanging match because that is the furthest thing I have in mind (Haven't done so in 9 years, don't intend to start now). I'm just interested as to why you now choose to taunt someone with the same viewpoint as yourself.
My regards to all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Brian Dixon, The last thing we want is a slanging match, and I am not after mischief either. I was merely trying to clarify K51's earlier staement, which was challenged by two or three other contributors. I was also interested in your ealier remarks about an unanswered R/T transmission, and anyone interested in this sad business will also, I daresay, wish to know more about it. But you are right about one thing; I am still utterly convinced that the vedict should stand. All good wishes 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 Mr Purdey,
explanation (not that it was required) accepted with regard your question to K52. It just came across to me the way I mentioned earlier. No problem - move on. No offence intended.
With regard the final transmission matter, I have written to the MoD to ask them to clarify a few issues surrounding that point. I understand that the ATC equipment at Scottish Mil was inspected and that everything was found to be in working order. This begs the question, why was the call not responded to (and also why no second call from the Chinook).
The second part of the question can never be answered, but I wonder what, if any procedure or follow up investigation was made into the 'missed' call. That's my line of enquiry at the moment. If I get anywhere with it, I'll let you know via a post.
As always,
My best to you.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
explanation (not that it was required) accepted with regard your question to K52. It just came across to me the way I mentioned earlier. No problem - move on. No offence intended.
With regard the final transmission matter, I have written to the MoD to ask them to clarify a few issues surrounding that point. I understand that the ATC equipment at Scottish Mil was inspected and that everything was found to be in working order. This begs the question, why was the call not responded to (and also why no second call from the Chinook).
The second part of the question can never be answered, but I wonder what, if any procedure or follow up investigation was made into the 'missed' call. That's my line of enquiry at the moment. If I get anywhere with it, I'll let you know via a post.
As always,
My best to you.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Brian Dixon,....and no offence taken, I assure you. It is just that there are a number of what are perhaps best called untidy ends in this whole business, and it would be to everyone's satisfaction to have them cleared up. With all good wishes, John Purdey.
Alfie,
The families will have peace, just as soon as justice and fairness prevail. Until then, however, the campaign to overturn the politically motivated, wholly indefensible decisions of the 2 AMs has to continue. Shame. Absolutely no offence taken, though - your point of view and the exasperation it shows are quite understandable.
The families will have peace, just as soon as justice and fairness prevail. Until then, however, the campaign to overturn the politically motivated, wholly indefensible decisions of the 2 AMs has to continue. Shame. Absolutely no offence taken, though - your point of view and the exasperation it shows are quite understandable.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alfie,
I think that the aim is indeed to let them rest in peace, but without the damage to their reputations caused by the air marshals' overturning of the BoI findings.
I have no experience of flying other than PPL/UAS. but I do understand english quite well, and believe that the requirements set by the RAF itself for a finding of gross negligence are quite simply not met.
That is why I, and many others better qualified, continue to support this campaign as strongly as we can.
Regards, chippy
I think that the aim is indeed to let them rest in peace, but without the damage to their reputations caused by the air marshals' overturning of the BoI findings.
I have no experience of flying other than PPL/UAS. but I do understand english quite well, and believe that the requirements set by the RAF itself for a finding of gross negligence are quite simply not met.
That is why I, and many others better qualified, continue to support this campaign as strongly as we can.
Regards, chippy
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 Alfie,
Indeed it is time to let Jon and Rick rest in peace. The MoD know what they need to do to allow this to happen.
It's a sorry state of affairs that we are still having the same arguments some nine years on, let alone two! The only right and proper outcome is that of justice for the pilots. Until then, the campaign continues.
Hi Thud and Chippy. I trust you are both keeping well.
As always,
my regards to all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Indeed it is time to let Jon and Rick rest in peace. The MoD know what they need to do to allow this to happen.
It's a sorry state of affairs that we are still having the same arguments some nine years on, let alone two! The only right and proper outcome is that of justice for the pilots. Until then, the campaign continues.
Hi Thud and Chippy. I trust you are both keeping well.
As always,
my regards to all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bath
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why we must go on
Brian,
I think we need to emphasize why this campaign must continue. It is not just about injustice, it is about the whole leadership ethos and culture that allows this injustice to be defended. The language used by those continuing to accuse the pilots of negligence shows a contempt for RAF pilots and an arrogance that must be condemned.
It also shows a weakness of character and a weakness of intellect that is alarming.
For example, it is clear that the co-pilot cannot be found guilty of any negligence unless there is unequivocal evidence of conspiracy to commit a negligent act or evidence of active collusion. Who knows, the co-pilot may well have been arguing, in an approved assertive manner, that the Captain was endangering the aircraft. Who knows - I don't. The worst we can speculate is a failure in CRM on his part.
The irony is, that to argue that both pilots commited a negligent act or acts, or to argue that they both blundered, is, without any substantial evidence, more ridiculous than to argue that there was a technical failure of some sort. Of course, neither of the 2 senior officers reviewing the BOI's finding had the technical experience or background that would enable them to grasp the subtleties of the problem.
So please continue; your campaign is important for the future. We need temperate and well informed leaders to analyse problems and plan strategy. The only way we will encourage such men to come forward is if we scorn gross bluster and condemn shallow thinking that seems to be favoured by the MoD and its lackeys.
I think we need to emphasize why this campaign must continue. It is not just about injustice, it is about the whole leadership ethos and culture that allows this injustice to be defended. The language used by those continuing to accuse the pilots of negligence shows a contempt for RAF pilots and an arrogance that must be condemned.
It also shows a weakness of character and a weakness of intellect that is alarming.
For example, it is clear that the co-pilot cannot be found guilty of any negligence unless there is unequivocal evidence of conspiracy to commit a negligent act or evidence of active collusion. Who knows, the co-pilot may well have been arguing, in an approved assertive manner, that the Captain was endangering the aircraft. Who knows - I don't. The worst we can speculate is a failure in CRM on his part.
The irony is, that to argue that both pilots commited a negligent act or acts, or to argue that they both blundered, is, without any substantial evidence, more ridiculous than to argue that there was a technical failure of some sort. Of course, neither of the 2 senior officers reviewing the BOI's finding had the technical experience or background that would enable them to grasp the subtleties of the problem.
So please continue; your campaign is important for the future. We need temperate and well informed leaders to analyse problems and plan strategy. The only way we will encourage such men to come forward is if we scorn gross bluster and condemn shallow thinking that seems to be favoured by the MoD and its lackeys.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hook
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fadec Software Problems
One point I have a problem with.
If the FADEC software is suspected of being a heavyweight player in this unfortunate incident, then why haven't more Chinooks, fitted with the same Fadec software, fallen from the sky.
Surely now is the time to fit all military aircraft with a Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flt Data Recorder.
But aircrew seem to have an aversion to CVR's just in case their discussions on other subjects are overheard!
If the FADEC software is suspected of being a heavyweight player in this unfortunate incident, then why haven't more Chinooks, fitted with the same Fadec software, fallen from the sky.
Surely now is the time to fit all military aircraft with a Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flt Data Recorder.
But aircrew seem to have an aversion to CVR's just in case their discussions on other subjects are overheard!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F ADEC - good point. In fact, sufficient FADEC-equipped Chinooks had fallen out of the sky, and continued to do so, to cast serious doubts over FADEC at the time of the accident. Sqn Leader Burke gave evidence to the House of Lords enquiry, citing extensive personal experience, and recounting the experiences of other operators, notably the US. The full transcript is on the House of Lords website - check the campaign's site under Links for where to find it here.
Last edited by Chocks Wahay; 14th Aug 2003 at 19:08.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The campaign site seems unavailable for some reason. Is there a known problem?
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.
Raedweld,
I give an absolute assurance that I will continue to campaign for as long as it takes.
I understand your point with regard the contempt and arrogance. However, times, they are a changin', although it will be interesting to see how they change (and how quickly).
Your point on the actions of two pilots seen as a whole, is also one that has been discussed many times, yet completely discounted by those who make (and stick) to their decision of negligence. I feel that I should point out that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot. I would have thought that he would have at least had an understanding of dual pilot operations.
F Adec,
as Chocks says, a good point. However I'm not sure I would place FADEC as a 'heavyweight player'. It is, without doubt, a factor that should be considered, and the evidence presented by Mr Burke taken a little more seriously by some, perhaps. What the FADEC thing is, in fact, is an element of (significant) doubt that should negate the Absolutely No Doubt verdict of the Air Marshals. There are, of course many other areas of dobt too.
With regard CVR and ADR, I do know that they have been fitted to the current fleet of Chinooks. To those aircrew who don't particularly like them, I would respectfully say that this particular tragedy should serve as a reminder of the protection such equipment affords.
Keep checking the web site. I'm sure Chocks will fix the problem as soon as is possible.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Raedweld,
I give an absolute assurance that I will continue to campaign for as long as it takes.
I understand your point with regard the contempt and arrogance. However, times, they are a changin', although it will be interesting to see how they change (and how quickly).
Your point on the actions of two pilots seen as a whole, is also one that has been discussed many times, yet completely discounted by those who make (and stick) to their decision of negligence. I feel that I should point out that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot. I would have thought that he would have at least had an understanding of dual pilot operations.
F Adec,
as Chocks says, a good point. However I'm not sure I would place FADEC as a 'heavyweight player'. It is, without doubt, a factor that should be considered, and the evidence presented by Mr Burke taken a little more seriously by some, perhaps. What the FADEC thing is, in fact, is an element of (significant) doubt that should negate the Absolutely No Doubt verdict of the Air Marshals. There are, of course many other areas of dobt too.
With regard CVR and ADR, I do know that they have been fitted to the current fleet of Chinooks. To those aircrew who don't particularly like them, I would respectfully say that this particular tragedy should serve as a reminder of the protection such equipment affords.
Keep checking the web site. I'm sure Chocks will fix the problem as soon as is possible.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook