Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outside the Cockpit
Olive Oil,
So you KNOW it was serviceable - please tell us how you know this.
Using your simple argument who do you see as carrying the responsibility for the failure to fit ESF to the Hercules, or the Nimrod at Kandahar - the crew or someone ouside the cockpit responsible for airworthiness - after all the Nimrod fleet had flown many 10's of 1000's of hours.
JB
So you KNOW it was serviceable - please tell us how you know this.
Using your simple argument who do you see as carrying the responsibility for the failure to fit ESF to the Hercules, or the Nimrod at Kandahar - the crew or someone ouside the cockpit responsible for airworthiness - after all the Nimrod fleet had flown many 10's of 1000's of hours.
JB
Olive Oyl
Please do yourself a favour and read my posts before posting.
Can you point me to where I have said airworthiness failings caused this crash?
What I have consistently said is that the pilots may, indeed, have made an error. I do not know. But what is demonstrable fact is that there were serious failings in the application of airworthiness regulations in the 12 month period prior to the crash and, had the BoI done their job properly, they would have reported this as an Organisational Fault; as required by AP3207. If you want to know what these failings were, read the BoI report and the proceedings of the FAI, House of Commons and House of Lords. Then, if you can stand the repetition, read the Haddon-Cave report, because it is equally applicable to Chinook.
My opinion is that, had this been reported, Wratten and Day would have thought twice about blaming the pilots because the legal concept of prior negligence would have arisen and other, more senior officers (i.e. those who write to the press supporting their verdict) would have been named and shamed.
Please do yourself a favour and read my posts before posting.
Can you point me to where I have said airworthiness failings caused this crash?
What I have consistently said is that the pilots may, indeed, have made an error. I do not know. But what is demonstrable fact is that there were serious failings in the application of airworthiness regulations in the 12 month period prior to the crash and, had the BoI done their job properly, they would have reported this as an Organisational Fault; as required by AP3207. If you want to know what these failings were, read the BoI report and the proceedings of the FAI, House of Commons and House of Lords. Then, if you can stand the repetition, read the Haddon-Cave report, because it is equally applicable to Chinook.
My opinion is that, had this been reported, Wratten and Day would have thought twice about blaming the pilots because the legal concept of prior negligence would have arisen and other, more senior officers (i.e. those who write to the press supporting their verdict) would have been named and shamed.
l b:
I know what you mean lb, and point taken, but it rather depends on what "it" is and thus what it is that nobody knows. In the absence of a proper Air Accident Investigation, and Lord knows this accident has been shown to be woefully bereft of that, avoidable accidents happen that should have been avoided.
This accident is a classic in that regard, for whatever the reasons that it happened (and you are quite right, we don't know them and probably never will), a proper Air Accident Investigation would have exposed what we now know, the parlous state of airworthiness not only pertaining to this aircraft, not merely to the fleet to which it belonged, but throughout the entire UK Military Airfleet. Corrective action could have been taken then, some 15 years ago, which might, indeed should, have prevented subsequent UK Military Airworthiness related fatal accidents. Perhaps some 30 needless deaths could thus have been avoided. Perhaps not, again we don't know. The difference is that at least we would have tried. Those who subverted the process have that to answer for.
The shameful slur on the reputations of two deceased Junior Officers is a scandal that will cling to the Royal Air Force long after amends are made. The further needless deaths are many times more grave a matter for that is the real cost of riding roughshod over procedures and Regulations designed in the final instance to avoid such needless deaths, as is also the purpose of proper Air Accident Investigations. The Royal Air Force has shown itself not to be trusted with either, which must be removed out of its hands and that of its accomplice in this affair, the MOD. The MAA must be made independent and separate of both, as a matter of urgency.
Self Regulation never works and in Aviation it Kills!
... it all comes down to nobody knows.
This accident is a classic in that regard, for whatever the reasons that it happened (and you are quite right, we don't know them and probably never will), a proper Air Accident Investigation would have exposed what we now know, the parlous state of airworthiness not only pertaining to this aircraft, not merely to the fleet to which it belonged, but throughout the entire UK Military Airfleet. Corrective action could have been taken then, some 15 years ago, which might, indeed should, have prevented subsequent UK Military Airworthiness related fatal accidents. Perhaps some 30 needless deaths could thus have been avoided. Perhaps not, again we don't know. The difference is that at least we would have tried. Those who subverted the process have that to answer for.
The shameful slur on the reputations of two deceased Junior Officers is a scandal that will cling to the Royal Air Force long after amends are made. The further needless deaths are many times more grave a matter for that is the real cost of riding roughshod over procedures and Regulations designed in the final instance to avoid such needless deaths, as is also the purpose of proper Air Accident Investigations. The Royal Air Force has shown itself not to be trusted with either, which must be removed out of its hands and that of its accomplice in this affair, the MOD. The MAA must be made independent and separate of both, as a matter of urgency.
Self Regulation never works and in Aviation it Kills!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
At the risk of boring pruners to death, and as a really final contribution to this long running saga, I would like to repeat what I said eighteen months ago , ie "The follwing explanations for the disaster have so far been suggested here:
1.The crew were seduced into the hillside by a false IRA beacon.
2. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a fly or flies in the cockpit.
3. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a wasp or wasps in the cockpit
4.There was a secret piece of US equipment on board, which caused a malfunction (and which explained the alleged presence of US SEALS as the first people to reach the scene.)
5. All the aircraft controls jammed, so that the crew did not fly the aircraft into the granite, the aircraft flew the crew into it, while the crew sat helplessly and watched it happen.
6. Both pilots simultaneously suffered spatial disorientation.
7. It may (or may not ) have been a case of government sponsored murder.
To recall the others gives me a headache, but I think you get the picture.
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts that without any doubt whatever (as we say) the crew should have turned away from that cloud-covered hill; and without any doubt whatever, they failed to do so. The most plausible explanation for their failure to turn away is that they misidentified the Fog station compound on the clifftop, thinking it was the Lighthouse compound. This put them about 500 yds to the right of their intended track, which meant (have a look at the map) that the hill in fron of them was around 300-400 ft higher than they expected, and they could not avoid it in the very limited visibility.
Such a failure to act as any reasonable person, given the same corcumstances would do, in this case turning away, is the definition of negligence.
Enough now!! JP
1.The crew were seduced into the hillside by a false IRA beacon.
2. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a fly or flies in the cockpit.
3. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a wasp or wasps in the cockpit
4.There was a secret piece of US equipment on board, which caused a malfunction (and which explained the alleged presence of US SEALS as the first people to reach the scene.)
5. All the aircraft controls jammed, so that the crew did not fly the aircraft into the granite, the aircraft flew the crew into it, while the crew sat helplessly and watched it happen.
6. Both pilots simultaneously suffered spatial disorientation.
7. It may (or may not ) have been a case of government sponsored murder.
To recall the others gives me a headache, but I think you get the picture.
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts that without any doubt whatever (as we say) the crew should have turned away from that cloud-covered hill; and without any doubt whatever, they failed to do so. The most plausible explanation for their failure to turn away is that they misidentified the Fog station compound on the clifftop, thinking it was the Lighthouse compound. This put them about 500 yds to the right of their intended track, which meant (have a look at the map) that the hill in fron of them was around 300-400 ft higher than they expected, and they could not avoid it in the very limited visibility.
Such a failure to act as any reasonable person, given the same corcumstances would do, in this case turning away, is the definition of negligence.
Enough now!! JP
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP, so be it. That said, if any further inquiry uncovers the facts that senior officers were negligent/reckless in carrying out their clearly defined duties, should they be held publicly accountable?
Cows Getting Bigger
As you may have spotted, some people seem extremely keen to divert attention away from the actions of senior officers.
As JP so rightly points out -
It would appear from other posts that MoD has released some relevant papers that shed light on the actions of some senior officers. Have these names been submitted to Lord Philip with a view to him conducting formal interviews, as Mr Haddon-Cave did?
As you may have spotted, some people seem extremely keen to divert attention away from the actions of senior officers.
As JP so rightly points out -
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts
It would appear from other posts that MoD has released some relevant papers that shed light on the actions of some senior officers. Have these names been submitted to Lord Philip with a view to him conducting formal interviews, as Mr Haddon-Cave did?
JP
It could be argued that the only fact we know for sure is that the Chinook crashed. Your opinion, which by your own admission is
does not, would you not agree, meet the requirement of without any doubt whatsoever? This campaign is, as I understand it, firstly and foremost seeking to put right the shameful "decision" made by D & W. If, as a consequence, lessons are identified on the myriad of other issues that may also be running parallel to this case then lets hope they are made public and perhaps, as with the Nimrod, those deemed responsible are 'named and shamed'.
And around the buoy we go again!
Happy New Year.
It could be argued that the only fact we know for sure is that the Chinook crashed. Your opinion, which by your own admission is
The most plausible explanation
And around the buoy we go again!
Happy New Year.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Let us cut to the chase.
Forget about wasps or visual illusion for the moment.
Do you have a shred of evidence to refute the Burke UFCM / FADEC theories.
Yes or no.
Let us cut to the chase.
Forget about wasps or visual illusion for the moment.
Do you have a shred of evidence to refute the Burke UFCM / FADEC theories.
Yes or no.
Last edited by dalek; 31st Dec 2010 at 19:13.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
You have an 'opinion' based on a scarcity of reliable facts. I have no doubt that will remain your opinion.
My 'opinion', based on the same scarcity of reliable facts, is very different.
It is not possible for us both to have a 'difference of opinion' in cases in which there is 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'.
Your opinion is not the only possible explanation. Just as my opinion that we could not recover sufficient facts to say for sure what happened, is not wrong.
We just disagree. That's all.
BTW: I recently viewed a TV program on air accident investigation, in which it was said that 'black boxes' are normally decoded by impartial third parties. In stark contrast to the navigation computer of ZD576 (never previously used to provide historical data!!!) which was of course decoded by it's manufacturer. Whose performance may of course have been implicated???
You have an 'opinion' based on a scarcity of reliable facts. I have no doubt that will remain your opinion.
My 'opinion', based on the same scarcity of reliable facts, is very different.
It is not possible for us both to have a 'difference of opinion' in cases in which there is 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'.
Your opinion is not the only possible explanation. Just as my opinion that we could not recover sufficient facts to say for sure what happened, is not wrong.
We just disagree. That's all.
BTW: I recently viewed a TV program on air accident investigation, in which it was said that 'black boxes' are normally decoded by impartial third parties. In stark contrast to the navigation computer of ZD576 (never previously used to provide historical data!!!) which was of course decoded by it's manufacturer. Whose performance may of course have been implicated???
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As 2010 wanders slowly to a close, I wish Brian and team the very best in their pursuit of justice and Lord Philip and team a successful foray into the jungle.
I do wonder whether the probable public damage to the reputation of the senior staff involved and the slight on the fine traditions of the RAF could have been avoided had so much effort not been made to prevent the current enquiry? A damage limitation exercise?
I do wonder whether the probable public damage to the reputation of the senior staff involved and the slight on the fine traditions of the RAF could have been avoided had so much effort not been made to prevent the current enquiry? A damage limitation exercise?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Sorry for getting carried away. Please accept my apologies.
Can you please answer the question. Have you any evidence to refute the Sqn Ldr Burke UFCM / FADEC theories.
Sorry for getting carried away. Please accept my apologies.
Can you please answer the question. Have you any evidence to refute the Sqn Ldr Burke UFCM / FADEC theories.
From elsewhere:
Michael Armitage Says:
December 27th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
First of all, a Merry Xmas to all readers.
I thought it would be worthwhile posting an update.
The Lord Philip Review has commenced and continues apace. The Review’s terms permit it to go deeper than previous reviews (which you will recall still cleared the pilots). This is making MoD nervous because they are being asked questions which they studiously avoided during the original Board of Inquiry.
This has not prevented them continuing to deny the existence or possession of key documents but the difference this time is that the Review is actively seeking and receiving copies from other MoD sources. That is, when any request is made of MoD, it is normally dealt with by a team which is ordered to toe the party line. In the past, this team’s replies have been accepted at face value, but following the experiences of the Nimrod and Hercules Coroners’ Inquests (when MoD lies were exposed in Court) it seems the Review is pursuing unofficial channels and having some success acquiring these non-existent documents.
One example of the issues being raised is here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...erged-743.html (at post #7426)
To summarise this single post, the Board of Inquiry were duty bound to consider the possibility of an underlying “Organisational Fault”. They did not. The poster postulates this was under direction from senior officers. Right or wrong, his point about the Board’s report not once mentioning “negligence” or “airworthiness” is perfectly valid and constitutes an extraordinary omission and failure of duty. This is important, because the existence of such an “Organisational Fault” is exactly what the Haddon-Cave report is all about; in that case, a systemic failure to implement airworthiness regulations. Who benefits from such an omission?
This in turn raises a question which Lord Philip has been asked to consider. If senior officers were deemed to have contributed to an Organisational Fault, could a verdict of gross negligence be sustained? (In my opinion) of course not, because such a verdict required proof beyond any doubt whatsoever; and such a high level failure would introduce doubt. Also, please consider this. The officers who handed down the gross negligence verdict and their supporters (primarily retired senior officers of the day) were part of the cadre responsible for Organisation Fault. Not only on Chinook. At their level, their actions affect all aircraft, so they can be seen to be major contributors to the problems exposed by Haddon-Cave.
This plethora of “new” evidence (it is not new as such, but it was not made available before now) is believed to be one reason why Lord Philip has sought a 6 month extension, with mid-2011 now his target. This would suggest that not only has Lord Philip been informed of such failings, but this time hard factual evidence has been produced which MoD can no longer simply dismiss as hearsay.
December 27th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
First of all, a Merry Xmas to all readers.
I thought it would be worthwhile posting an update.
The Lord Philip Review has commenced and continues apace. The Review’s terms permit it to go deeper than previous reviews (which you will recall still cleared the pilots). This is making MoD nervous because they are being asked questions which they studiously avoided during the original Board of Inquiry.
This has not prevented them continuing to deny the existence or possession of key documents but the difference this time is that the Review is actively seeking and receiving copies from other MoD sources. That is, when any request is made of MoD, it is normally dealt with by a team which is ordered to toe the party line. In the past, this team’s replies have been accepted at face value, but following the experiences of the Nimrod and Hercules Coroners’ Inquests (when MoD lies were exposed in Court) it seems the Review is pursuing unofficial channels and having some success acquiring these non-existent documents.
One example of the issues being raised is here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...erged-743.html (at post #7426)
To summarise this single post, the Board of Inquiry were duty bound to consider the possibility of an underlying “Organisational Fault”. They did not. The poster postulates this was under direction from senior officers. Right or wrong, his point about the Board’s report not once mentioning “negligence” or “airworthiness” is perfectly valid and constitutes an extraordinary omission and failure of duty. This is important, because the existence of such an “Organisational Fault” is exactly what the Haddon-Cave report is all about; in that case, a systemic failure to implement airworthiness regulations. Who benefits from such an omission?
This in turn raises a question which Lord Philip has been asked to consider. If senior officers were deemed to have contributed to an Organisational Fault, could a verdict of gross negligence be sustained? (In my opinion) of course not, because such a verdict required proof beyond any doubt whatsoever; and such a high level failure would introduce doubt. Also, please consider this. The officers who handed down the gross negligence verdict and their supporters (primarily retired senior officers of the day) were part of the cadre responsible for Organisation Fault. Not only on Chinook. At their level, their actions affect all aircraft, so they can be seen to be major contributors to the problems exposed by Haddon-Cave.
This plethora of “new” evidence (it is not new as such, but it was not made available before now) is believed to be one reason why Lord Philip has sought a 6 month extension, with mid-2011 now his target. This would suggest that not only has Lord Philip been informed of such failings, but this time hard factual evidence has been produced which MoD can no longer simply dismiss as hearsay.
BEagle ??? source???? JP
Possibly a coincidence? Or is someone on that site trying to be devious?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Thank you.
With or without being rude, how can you justify the Gross Negligence verdict without demolishing Sqn Ldr Burke's evidence?
If UFCM / FADEC problems still cannot be ruled out, how can the verdict be justified?
A Happy New Year to you and all the other participants.
Thank you.
With or without being rude, how can you justify the Gross Negligence verdict without demolishing Sqn Ldr Burke's evidence?
If UFCM / FADEC problems still cannot be ruled out, how can the verdict be justified?
A Happy New Year to you and all the other participants.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reason Number 8
JP,
You missed reason number 8 off the list - not good as it is the one that you need to use to find aircrew negligence. It reads:
Having meticulously planned a low-level VFR transit (not least to avoid the icing limitations on the airframe) which took full account of the expected weather conditions, and having changed waypoints whilst over the sea (when MOD has confirmed this would normally pressage an immediate course change) an experienced SF crew ignored all their flight planning and training and selected "an inappropriate rate of climb to overfly the Mull" leading to the accident.
As greater legal brains than you and I have pointed out this reason is not based on facts - it is as full of speculation leading to hypotheses as some of reasons 1-7, but you are, clearly, entitled to have this opinion. What the "system" is not entitled to do under RAF rules of the time, or indeed civil law, let alone the ethical standard of justice one might expect to apply to the RAF, is to find Gross Negligence based on this speculation!
A Happy New Year to all.
JB
You missed reason number 8 off the list - not good as it is the one that you need to use to find aircrew negligence. It reads:
Having meticulously planned a low-level VFR transit (not least to avoid the icing limitations on the airframe) which took full account of the expected weather conditions, and having changed waypoints whilst over the sea (when MOD has confirmed this would normally pressage an immediate course change) an experienced SF crew ignored all their flight planning and training and selected "an inappropriate rate of climb to overfly the Mull" leading to the accident.
As greater legal brains than you and I have pointed out this reason is not based on facts - it is as full of speculation leading to hypotheses as some of reasons 1-7, but you are, clearly, entitled to have this opinion. What the "system" is not entitled to do under RAF rules of the time, or indeed civil law, let alone the ethical standard of justice one might expect to apply to the RAF, is to find Gross Negligence based on this speculation!
A Happy New Year to all.
JB