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 15th Aug 2003, 20:39
  #721 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

F Adec,

Oh dear! Please study the earlier threads. Like all the other nine or so red herrings, FADEC had nothing whatever to do with the root cause of this tradgedy. Do I have to spell it out again? Surely not. JP.
 
Old 15th Aug 2003, 22:16
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,771
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
JP,

NO I don't suppose we do. But you might like to spell out 'tradgedy' again. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it has only one 'd'. Regards, P1
pulse1 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2003, 05:20
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just enjoyed Sky's run of the Hutton enquiry with actors. I assume we are to accept that the transcripts are untouched by human hands! By Sky that is!

However, Buffhoon has soon to attend the inquiry. My current sense of satisfaction is that he will almost certainly be dumped! Ignominiously one hopes. After which dare we hope that the new Minister of Defence will soon be persuaded to take a different view of their Lordship's findings?

Let us hope so.
InFinRetirement is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2003, 16:37
  #724 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 72
Posts: 1,169
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh dear! Please study the earlier threads....... Do I have to spell it out again?
Do I have to spell it out again too?

What part of 'ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER' do you have trouble with JP?

Your smug black and white view of this traGedy does not equate to the burdon of proof required.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2003, 22:18
  #725 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Pulse 1 & ArkRoyal,
OK, so my finger slipped! But please do not us start this whole discussion again; you know my view. JP.
 
Old 18th Aug 2003, 12:28
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Poetic Justice?
HectorusRex is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2003, 17:32
  #727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just in case you missed it...

This is from June's HoC Committee debate on the renewal of search and seizure regs. Don't ask me why ZD576 is discussed, but it is.

Julian Lewis MP (Tory defence spokesman):

"Last June, when the order was considered in the other place, Lord Chalfont tabled an amendment because he did not wish the orders to be approved until justice had been done to the memory of the two pilots of Chinook ZD576. Many feel, in light of the RAF's regulations at the time, that the pilots were saddled unfairly with the blame for the crash on the Mull of Kintyre. Will the Minister give us an update on that continuing debate? On questions of ethos and spirit in

Column Number: 013

the armed forces, it is important that servicemen know that they will not posthumously carry the blame for something for which, if there were any doubt about the circumstances, they should not be blamed. If one thing is certain, it is that there was some doubt about the circumstances of the Mull of Kintyre crash. Significantly, the rules have been changed since the matter came to the fore, so that people can never be blamed posthumously as those young officers were. We have some unfinished business that the Minister would do well to address.

---

The new MoD Minister, Ivor Caplin, replied later:

I want to make two points to the hon. Gentleman about the issue of Chinook and the Mull of Kintyre. If I do not deal with the matter in full, I hope that he will understand that I am still considering some of the issues and will happily come back to him. The reviewing officers were and remain convinced that they had met the required standard, and the Government retain every confidence in their judgment. Since that tragic accident, the Ministry of Defence has examined all the complex technical, legal and airmanship issues raised by those opposed to the

Column Number: 019

finding, but we have found nothing to undermine that ruling.
I accept that it is possible for different people—perfectly properly and with entirely open minds—to reach different conclusions. Only if it could be seen that there was new evidence would it be right to consider moderating or setting aside the board of inquiry's findings to date.

Dr. Lewis: It is precisely because, as the Minister concedes, different people can reach different conclusions that it is wrong to say that there was no reasonable doubt. If under the old rules there was no reasonable doubt, dead aircrew should not have been blamed. The killer point is that the rules have been changed since the case, so should the same thing happen again, it would not be possible for pilots to be blamed in the same way. What is at stake is the posthumous reputation of two pilots who are being judged under a system that it has since been deemed necessary to change. That seems rather an unfair way to save the face of two senior reviewing officers.

Mr. Caplin: I part company with the hon. Gentleman on that. The Government have been entirely open and honest about those issues. We have co-operated fully with every inquiry, and the inquiry conclusions stand. As I told the hon. Gentleman at the outset, if I feel any differently in a few months' time, I will happily get back to him.

-------

Not sure if this is worth getting excited about, but nice to know that people are still flying the flag in Parliament.

Rex
Rex 1100 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2003, 13:50
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Weight of evidence increases the pressure on Hoon
HectorusRex is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2003, 23:38
  #729 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chinook

Well, yes; but what has that got to do with Hoon? Before he came on the scene, no fewer than ten ministers over three administrations had endorsed the findings by the Air Marshals. JP
 
Old 23rd Aug 2003, 03:52
  #730 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,561
Received 402 Likes on 210 Posts
Which just goes to show how it is possible to pull the wool over people's eyes, John.

At least one minister (the one in post at the time) has had the good grace to admit that he was wrong to endorse the air marshall's verdict of gross negligence.

We remain firm in our original verdict
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 23rd Aug 2003, 17:59
  #731 (permalink)  
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
Not to mention James Arbuthnot MP, who had the courage and integrity to stand up in the House and admit that he had initially reached the wrong conclusion.

Mr Arbuthnot now leads the Mull of Kintyre campaign group in its aim to clear the names of Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook.

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2003, 19:18
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lancashire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
John Purdey,
Malcolm Rifkind, the Minister who originally supported the findings has already stated that in the light of the HOL findings, he would be more than willing to reverse his original decision if able. Just how many more of those 10 ministers would be prepared to do the same if they gave one hour of their time to S/L Burke or Brian Dixon, instead of being given the usual MOD "spin".
yetti is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2003, 00:24
  #733 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Yetti, These re-thinks are very interesting, and it will be even more interesting to see where we go from here. Regards. John Purdey
 
Old 28th Aug 2003, 14:10
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How does "LMF" sound for Hoon?
HectorusRex is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2003, 18:10
  #735 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 72
Posts: 1,169
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hoon's performance yesterday was hardly a surprise. It displayed all of the career saving buck passing that Day and Wratten exercised nine years ago. It's no surprise, as this buffoon cares nothing for the truth and everything for his own career.

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "Mr Hoon's evidence leaves one wondering who was running the Ministry of Defence. Will no one take responsibility for the outing of Dr Kelly?"
how true.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2003, 02:27
  #736 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Ark Royal,
Your posting not understod. Whether you agree with Day and Wratten or not (and please let us not go into that again), what makes you say that the two of them passed the buck? Both of them nailed their colours to the mast, and have stuck to it through thick and thin. So tell us to whom you think they passed this particular buck. Regards as always, John Purdey.
 
Old 29th Aug 2003, 18:59
  #737 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 72
Posts: 1,169
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do keep up, John.

They passed the buck to the pilots, thus deflecting any deep scrutiny of their own failings.

e.g. mismanagement of the chinook MLU to such a degree, that the Mk2 was rushed in to service before its woeful faults had been addressed.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2003, 03:20
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think this thread and many of the key observations made should be presented in evidence. Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook deserve more !

As far as I can see, the reputations of two of our finest have been impugned - human failings aside, I wasn't there and I don't know what happened even with the plethora of evidence available - and their families have been shoddily treated by the system. I have been flown by the very best in very tricky clag and never doubted their "duty of care" for the boys in the back and they always knew we trusted them, wicked practical jokes aside - why can't they be given the same privilege ?

Just look at how the system is behaving today on other unrelated issues !
Pilgrim101 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2003, 04:23
  #739 (permalink)  
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,

Yetti,
I'd be more than happy to meet any MP, even for half an hour! If there's any out there who are still unsure, just drop me a line and I'll provide you with more information so that you can make your mind up.

Mr Purdey,
I have to agree with Ark on this one. I may be wrong, but don't recall there ever being a review on the rushed introduction into service of the Mk2 Chinook. It seems to have been the pilots were to blame and that's that.

Pilgrim,
I quite agree! Jon and Rick deserve much more - as do their families. If you haven't already, go and have a look at the dedicated web site - Chinook Justice

My regards to you all, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2003, 17:29
  #740 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Ark Royal
A simple misundertanding. I did say that there was no point in my discussing again right v wrong, you know my views; the buck I was talking about was the duty laid upon the two AMs to review the findings, however unpopular their decision might turn out to be.
Very interested to read about the a/c being rushed into service. Did the various crews make protest about that at the time? Regards. JP.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.