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 24th Dec 2010, 14:54
  #7321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

JB..... and given your background I am surprised at some of the company you keep. Meanwhile, you are talking about alleged failures in the heirachy, on which, being long gone, I cannot comment. I am talking about negligence at the sharp end, defined in my book as 'taking (or in this case) failing to take, an action which a reasonable person given the same circumstances would take (in this case turning away and up the coast, rather than flying over the Mull). We shall never see a meeting of minds here, but have a good Christmas anyway. JP.
John Purdey is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 16:04
  #7322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
JB..... and given your background I am surprised at some of the company you keep. Meanwhile, you are talking about alleged failures in the heirachy, on which, being long gone, I cannot comment.

As John Blakeley posts under his own name and his former rank is, I believe, widely known, I find it reassuring he keeps the company he does.

You, John Purdey, on the other hand, take gratification it denigrating a fellow officer and keep the company of those who regard the regulations as something senior staffs can ignore, content in the knowledge you can always blame the consequences on junior officers.

I may be of a different Service, but I can still spot the difference between a leader and someone who blindly follows the party line while not caring one iota for duty of care. I'm sure the Air Staffs, past and present, are so proud of you. I'm also sure there are those who cringe at your posts and thank God you are no longer responsible for a major component of airworthiness.
dervish is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 16:37
  #7323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dervish. Thankyou for your interest, but you add nothing to the discussion. Have a good Christmas. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 16:55
  #7324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
John Purdey

I suppose you are absolutely right. I didn't add anything as we already knew, although it is never a bad thing to repeat a valid point.
dervish is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 18:26
  #7325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 25
I didn't add anything as we already knew
dervish - you do yourself an injustice - you succinctly put into words what many onlookers here think about certain poster's attitudes to this matter. Thank you.
Merry Xmas to all.
ND
Nobodys Desk is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 20:40
  #7326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
John Purdey

In his review of the BoI, AM Wratten used the following words: "without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".

How does this statement fit with Wratten's conclusion, "beyond any doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were negligent?

Last edited by meadowbank; 24th Dec 2010 at 20:43. Reason: Punctuation
meadowbank is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2010, 22:33
  #7327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
that the pilots were negligent?
Hate to be a pedant but weren't they found to be "grossly negligent"?
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2010, 08:58
  #7328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
The Company I Keep

JP,

The company I keep has been fighting to right a gross injustice for 15 years - it includes former Ministers (even a former PM), senior politicians of all parties and professional military and civilian aircrew and engineers - some of whom have investigated this accident and the serious flaws in its investigation to a much greater depth than I have. Thus I am quite happy to be associated with it, in my own name. Sadly, it has taken the Nimrod accident and the Haddon-Cave Inquiry for the MOD and RAF to realise where their (mis) management of airworthiness standards and procedures has taken them over the last 20 years - something the Mull Group and other pressure groups campaigning to improve airworthiness managment and standards and the "fitness for purpose" of RAF aircraft had been pointing out, with some success, eg in MOD finally fitting ESF for Hercules, long before H-C "made it official".

JB
John Blakeley is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2010, 20:44
  #7329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by John Purdey View Post
I am talking about negligence at the sharp end, defined in my book as 'taking (or in this case) failing to take, an action which a reasonable person given the same circumstances would take
Since no-one knows what those circumstances were, how can anyone know what a reasonable person might or might not have done?

Am I missing something?

Happy Christmas all.

Nigel
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2010, 21:50
  #7330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Thor Nogson View Post
Since no-one knows what those circumstances were, how can anyone know what a reasonable person might or might not have done?

Am I missing something?

Happy Christmas all.

Nigel
Nigel,

You have missed absolutely nothing
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2010, 22:17
  #7331 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Originally Posted by JP's 'book'
'taking (or in this case) failing to take, an action which a reasonable person given the same circumstances would take'
- Hmm! A range of 'persons' to choose from I think.
BOAC is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2010, 10:59
  #7332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,119
JP's comment above seems to indicate that in his estimation that terrible event on Mull happened as the 2 pilots were not 'reasonable persons' but were 'unreasonable persons'.

I can only deduce from that comment that JP must think that the RAF pilot selection, training and monitoring systems were so poor that they would allow 'unreasonable persons' to attain the positions of highly specialised SH and SF RAF pilots .
Bertie Thruster is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2010, 14:29
  #7333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
What many contributors to this thread ignore is that when the BOI arrived at HQ1Gp for "Staffing" it already contained a finding of negligence from the Stn Cdr at RAF Odiham who stated in his remarks that Flt Lt Tapper, as the Aircraft Captain, had a Duty of Care in the conduct of the flight and that he had failed in that Duty.

My Dictionary defines negligence as " Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require".

AOC 1Gp extended that verdict to include Flt Lt Cook who was the Handling Pilot.
cazatou is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2010, 15:02
  #7334 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
already contained a finding of negligence
- what 'sort' of negligence, Caz, in BoI terms? Gross? Culpable? Excusable? How does your 'dictionary' define 'Gross Negligence'? That is the topic of this thread, not some JP 'book' or Caz 'dictionary' waffle.
BOAC is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2010, 16:10
  #7335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Where does it say negligence?

Caz,

I see that like JP you have reverted to going over old ground - is this the new policy for "defending the indefensible"? As you well know the published remarks of the Stn Cdr Odiham in the BoI do not contain the word negligence at any point, and even his final "reluctant" conclusion on the "failure" of the pilots to ensure the safety of their passengers leaves open the question of why that failure might have occurred (and of course we now know more than he would have done then as to the real airworthiness and fitness for purpose issues of the time, and that they were not just "mitigating circumstances"). What the comments do show is a massive "disconnect" between the first 4 paragraphs, which basically "throw out" many of the BoI's conclusions, and the last two paragraphs, and you would need to be a member of the RAF's equivalent of the "Flat Earth Society" not to notice both this and the Stn Cdr's very carefully chosen words to conform to what in my opinion had by then clearly become a policy decision to find the pilots "guilty". Do you remember the AOCinC's memo of 15 Feb 1995 requiring the allocation of blame? The Stn Cdr's comments are dated 3 March 1995, which seems a bit late for all the staffing needed for the AOCinC to be able to publish his remarks by 3 April 1995 if this was the first time round don't you think?

Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.

JB
John Blakeley is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2010, 21:45
  #7336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
kz2:
BOI arrived at HQ1Gp for "Staffing" it already contained a finding of negligence from the Stn Cdr at RAF Odiham
John Blakely (who posts under his real name):
the published remarks of the Stn Cdr Odiham in the BoI do not contain the word negligence at any point, and even his final "reluctant" conclusion on the "failure" of the pilots to ensure the safety of their passengers leaves open the question of why that failure might have occurred
Someone is telling porkies. I know who my money is on........
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2010, 11:10
  #7337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Fitter2

May I suggest that you read Post 7415 again.
cazatou is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2010, 11:32
  #7338 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,435
AOC 1Gp extended that verdict to include Flt Lt Cook who was the Handling Pilot.
What evidence proved that Flt Lt Cook was handling the aircraft at the time of the accident?
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2010, 11:43
  #7339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,636
cazatou,

As usual, instead of answering the questions you are asked, you try to divert attention in some obscure way to someone else.

Do you remember the AOCinC's memo of 15 Feb 1995 requiring the allocation of blame? The Stn Cdr's comments are dated 3 March 1995, which seems a bit late for all the staffing needed for the AOCinC to be able to publish his remarks by 3 April 1995 if this was the first time round don't you think?

Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.
Why not deal with the issue as requested. If you can't, then say so.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2010, 11:59
  #7340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,202
JB:
JP,

The company I keep....... includes former Ministers (even a former PM), senior politicians of all parties and professional military and civilian aircrew and engineers
The irony of your quote (heavily edited to make my point) is that JP and his chums could say much the same thing. When a great wrong such as this is inflicted from above it immediately effects everyone, from AC2 to ACM and above. Each and everyone is faced with a moral dilemma to obey orders or to challenge them. That decision then stays with them forever and as we have seen so often in these pages results in continual efforts to defend the indefensible, ie their own original decision. That I am afraid is their dilemma, ours is to learn from them. There has been a tendency in these pages for those like me, who call for resignation when no other honourable course seems possible, to be derided. At least such a course leaves you with a clear conscience and a fresh start, whereas toeing the unjust party line compromises you forever.
We have had the pleasure of having our three grandchildren with us again this Christmas, and as ever they made me feel both young and very old in equal measure! As to the former effect their attitude to unfairness is clear, it is simply not acceptable! If one thinks back to one's own childhood those episodes are the sharpest memories, well for me at least. Discipline and punishment when fairly administered were acceptable albeit reluctantly, injustice then though rankles to this day! No matter how high and mighty we be, we would be well advised to relearn those childhood attitudes, for out of the mouths of babes etc....
Illegal orders do not merely consist of ones concerning shooting POWs behind barns, those are the easy ones to resist. The difficult ones are those that involve "the good of the Service" etc. No doubt that was an oft repeated phrase over the many phone calls that spread this particular cancer. I do not see what good it has done to the Service or the Nation. Both are now bereft of any MAR capability and the former bears a shame to match the Dreyfuss case.
There is a lesson here for us all, particularly those still serving. You could be the recipient of such an order, such a phone call. Now is the time to consider your response, for then will be too late. To a profession that is based on the "What if...." premise that shouldn't be too difficult a task. It might just save you in years to come from defending the indefensible on forums such as this!
Chugalug2 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.