Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't see any evidence to suggest:
Quote:
They displayed poor airmanship, poor captaincy and were unprofessional
Quote:
They displayed poor airmanship, poor captaincy and were unprofessional
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"they had brought upon themselves an emergency, a crisis of time"
"On approaching the deteriorating weather near the Mull, they had two choices. If they intended and were able to maintain flight under Visual Flight Rules, they should have slowed down, turned away or turned back. If they planned to continue their flight under Instrument Flight Rules, they should have climbed to above Safety Altitude well before they approached the Mull. If they were forced to transition to Instrument Flight Rules because they inadvertently entered cloud when close to the Mull, they should have made a rapid climb to at least Safety Altitude at maximum power and best climbing speed, while also turning away from the Mull."
We, the undersigned, believe that there is no evidence to support a verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lt Rick Cook and Flt Lt Jon Tapper.
Vec
As I said, you may be right, although as a non-pilot I sense a slight contradiction between “IFR” and the possibility you mention of them only having a map – but that is from a viewpoint which takes into account none of the nav kit was cleared for use anyway.
But another crisis of time was created long before 2.6.94, ignored for many months and at the last minute the “solution” was to set aside every single mandated regulation in the book and issue an RTS. What was the “emergency” that caused ACAS to make such a decision? After all, he still had the Mk1 – the aircrews’ preferred aircraft.
The difference is that, while the crew had seconds to deal with whatever occurred in ZD576, the Air Staffs had many months to ponder what to do when told the Mk2 should not be released to service. I’m not sure if they did any “pondering”, but the gross negligence, maladministration and failure of Duty of Care inherent in their decision is self evident.
As I said, you may be right, although as a non-pilot I sense a slight contradiction between “IFR” and the possibility you mention of them only having a map – but that is from a viewpoint which takes into account none of the nav kit was cleared for use anyway.
they had brought upon themselves an emergency, a crisis of time
The difference is that, while the crew had seconds to deal with whatever occurred in ZD576, the Air Staffs had many months to ponder what to do when told the Mk2 should not be released to service. I’m not sure if they did any “pondering”, but the gross negligence, maladministration and failure of Duty of Care inherent in their decision is self evident.
bast0n:
Gosh, bast0n, gosh? Why are you so dumbfounded at the suggestion that there is no evidence that:
Where is the evidence of that? It is a statement not evidence. This BoI was notable for its lack of evidence. There is a strong suspicion that it deliberately turned its back on what evidence was available and failed utterly in its duty which was to discover why this aircraft crashed rather than stick to its brief of not discovering it. We still don't know why this aircraft crashed. What we do know is that this aircraft was grossly unairworthy from the day it became an HC2 until it killed 29 people. That minor bit of evidence was ignored by the BoI and the Reviewing Officers. They displayed a poor sense of duty, poor accident investigation and were unprofessional. There you are, another statement for you!
Gosh..............................
They displayed poor airmanship, poor captaincy and were unprofessional
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This BoI was notable for its lack of evidence
It was not possible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the accident.
Opinionated individuals can have whatever opinions they like. Ultimately they are only that 'opinions.' Which of course are based on very little, if they can't be backed up by reliable facts!
Only Lord Phillip's is of any interest whatsoever.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 18th Dec 2010 at 12:10.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghugaz
Are you assuming that my Gosh meant that or the opposite? Without any firm evidence....................
Gosh, bast0n, gosh? Why are you so dumbfounded at the suggestion that there is no evidence that:
Are you assuming that my Gosh meant that or the opposite? Without any firm evidence....................
Well then tell us bast0n, do you think that there was such evidence, or do you prefer the insouciant position, shared by some of your "shipmates", that this is a crab affair and thus food for crab baiting? Do you think for example that the BoI verdict of pilot error was a sufficient explanation as to why two Naval Sea Kings collided, killing all on board, or is that none of our business?
As to the lack of firm evidence re your position on this accident, it will probably never emerge, thus I admit to an assumption. The evidence of a cover up relating to the subject accident of this thread is a different matter. The truth will out, sooner or later, of that I am certain.
As to the lack of firm evidence re your position on this accident, it will probably never emerge, thus I admit to an assumption. The evidence of a cover up relating to the subject accident of this thread is a different matter. The truth will out, sooner or later, of that I am certain.
The Public Eye could still be caught bast0n, just as it was for the Hercules, Nimrod and Chinook, ie via this very forum. They all had one thing in common, subversion of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations that therein cost 53 lives. The Sea King tragedy of course cost the lives of a further 7.....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
No names and no packdrill, but there would be less heat and more light in this long running discussion if posters were to study the definition of 'negligence' With all good wishes for the seasonb, JP
“conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm”.
I believe it reasonable to expect officers to exercise both their Duty of Care toward colleagues and legal obligations to PUS and Secretary of State by adhering to regulations – particularly when they have signed a declaration they have met these obligations but know they have not.
I know there are many who do not believe this. Various AMSOs. CDP. DGAS2. DGSM. DPRD. 5 Ministers. But I am entitled to my opinion.
Are you familiar with the legal concept of "prior negligence"?
I believe it reasonable to expect officers to exercise both their Duty of Care toward colleagues and legal obligations to PUS and Secretary of State by adhering to regulations – particularly when they have signed a declaration they have met these obligations but know they have not.
I know there are many who do not believe this. Various AMSOs. CDP. DGAS2. DGSM. DPRD. 5 Ministers. But I am entitled to my opinion.
Are you familiar with the legal concept of "prior negligence"?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gross Negligence
JP,
Given your background I am surprised that you are going down this road again. The simplest legal definition of "Gross Negligence" (for that, and not negligence, was the AOCinC's finding) I can find is "An action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another."
Thus we have the situation that there is an alleged and unproven finding of gross negligence against the pilots. This is based, in my opinion and that of many others, on a totally inadequate and flawed BoI, and ultimately speculation as to what might have happened, with many "facts" throwing doubt on the basis of that speculation. This should be compared with the easily provable fact, ultimately admitted at 4* level, that the RAF's airworthiness system had totally failed thanks to deliberate "actions and omissions in reckless disregard of the consequences to flight safety and fitness for purpose" accepted, and even led, at the most senior level in the RAF. I believe these actions and omissions resulted or contributed to the loss not just of the Chinook, but the Tornado shot down by a Patriot missile, the Sea King collision in the Gulf. the loss of the Hercules XV 179 and, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, the Nimrod loss at Kandahar (which has now I suggest directly contributed to the RAF losing its maritime patrol capability).
Where do you see the gross negligence lying?
JB
Given your background I am surprised that you are going down this road again. The simplest legal definition of "Gross Negligence" (for that, and not negligence, was the AOCinC's finding) I can find is "An action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another."
Thus we have the situation that there is an alleged and unproven finding of gross negligence against the pilots. This is based, in my opinion and that of many others, on a totally inadequate and flawed BoI, and ultimately speculation as to what might have happened, with many "facts" throwing doubt on the basis of that speculation. This should be compared with the easily provable fact, ultimately admitted at 4* level, that the RAF's airworthiness system had totally failed thanks to deliberate "actions and omissions in reckless disregard of the consequences to flight safety and fitness for purpose" accepted, and even led, at the most senior level in the RAF. I believe these actions and omissions resulted or contributed to the loss not just of the Chinook, but the Tornado shot down by a Patriot missile, the Sea King collision in the Gulf. the loss of the Hercules XV 179 and, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, the Nimrod loss at Kandahar (which has now I suggest directly contributed to the RAF losing its maritime patrol capability).
Where do you see the gross negligence lying?
JB