Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
You have a very firm opinion on this case.
Are you really trying to tell us you have never seen, or at least read, the evidence given by Burke to the HOL enquiry?
If you havn't, then your opinion is about as valid as the Honourable Members of the HOL who rolled in from the bar to vote on the issue.
If you have, your flying experience gained a few years before, must tell you it was vital evidence to be considered by the BOI.
You have a very firm opinion on this case.
Are you really trying to tell us you have never seen, or at least read, the evidence given by Burke to the HOL enquiry?
If you havn't, then your opinion is about as valid as the Honourable Members of the HOL who rolled in from the bar to vote on the issue.
If you have, your flying experience gained a few years before, must tell you it was vital evidence to be considered by the BOI.
I have never seen the relevant documents, and I therefore do not know. Regards JP
Never mind documents JP, seen or unseen. What possible justification was there in the BoI failing to call the one man, both experienced and qualified with the flight and engine control shortcomings of the Chinook HC2, to give evidence to them? Why was Sqn Ldr Burke forbidden to contact them if it wasn't to hide such shortcomings?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcastic - Moi?
JP,
Sarcasm - mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult.
Obfuscate - To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. To render indistinct or dim; darken. "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
Disingenuous - Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating, pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.
I am sorry that at post 7517 you thought I was being sarcastic – I thought that I was merely pointing out facts that you and other supporters of the guilt based on speculation verdict like Caz continue to ignore since they are not saying what you want them to say. The problem is, as I see it, now in three parts which are highly inter-related, but which it is possible to consider separately.
Firstly what caused the accident - the answer to which is "we will never know", but people like you are convinced that you do know and are prepared to pronounce guilt based purely on speculation - I cannot see any way to persuade you otherwise and, as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.
Secondly there is the legal issue on which neither the Reviewing Officers nor people like you and me are qualified to comment. Here the HofL, which included a Law Lord, has said that at the time they reached this verdict the ROs did not reach a legally sustainable decision based on the facts of the case. This was the summary in my last post that neither you nor others like Caz have ever offered any answer to – so it is, I suggest, reasonable to assume that you do not have one. I am now speculating, but it is difficult to see how Lord Philip will find any difference of opinion on the legal aspects from the HofL unless someone comes forward with factual evidence that backs the "Gross Negligence" verdict - I think this is unlikely, but it would be wrong of me to pre-judge this. (I am, incidentally, personally convinced that those who sought the DLS advice could not have give them the full facts, since DLS are usually spot on with these issues, and I would not have expected them to offer different advice to the conclusions of the HofL Inquiry - MOD did not give them the full facts before the FAI either, and we have written proof of this. I suppose in mitigation one might argue that DLS would never have had the full facts because the Board hadn’t investigated them)
Thirdly, and ironically, of course there is the can of worms on the airworthiness and CAR/RTS issues that the Board's flawed investigation, and even more flawed analysis, together with this unjust verdict by the ROs have caused to be exposed. A just verdict would probably have left these issues buried. Whether these flaws were an indirect or even direct cause of the accident I do not know – unlike others I am not making any claims to know the cause or pronounce on guilt. I also do not know whether Lord Philip will look at this area, but the scandal here is at least as big as Haddon-Cave exposed on the Nimrod accident, and in some ways it is worse since, in my view, the failure to expose these issues at that time meant that the RAF was allowed to continue with its inadequate airworthiness and "fitness for purpose" policies and compromise its duty of care whilst yet more lives were lost to “airworthiness” related accidents over another 14 years.
I know that for the families clearing their sons’ names is the number one priority. I understand this, and I would not wish to see or do anything that prejudiced such an outcome – for that, and not speculation on the cause of the accident, is the prime reason for this thread, and, I assume, Lord Philip’s Review. However, I would also like to see Lord Philip pronounce on point 3 since I believe there are indeed some negligent and guilty parties in this area.
JB
Sarcasm - mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult.
Obfuscate - To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. To render indistinct or dim; darken. "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
Disingenuous - Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating, pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.
I am sorry that at post 7517 you thought I was being sarcastic – I thought that I was merely pointing out facts that you and other supporters of the guilt based on speculation verdict like Caz continue to ignore since they are not saying what you want them to say. The problem is, as I see it, now in three parts which are highly inter-related, but which it is possible to consider separately.
Firstly what caused the accident - the answer to which is "we will never know", but people like you are convinced that you do know and are prepared to pronounce guilt based purely on speculation - I cannot see any way to persuade you otherwise and, as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.
Secondly there is the legal issue on which neither the Reviewing Officers nor people like you and me are qualified to comment. Here the HofL, which included a Law Lord, has said that at the time they reached this verdict the ROs did not reach a legally sustainable decision based on the facts of the case. This was the summary in my last post that neither you nor others like Caz have ever offered any answer to – so it is, I suggest, reasonable to assume that you do not have one. I am now speculating, but it is difficult to see how Lord Philip will find any difference of opinion on the legal aspects from the HofL unless someone comes forward with factual evidence that backs the "Gross Negligence" verdict - I think this is unlikely, but it would be wrong of me to pre-judge this. (I am, incidentally, personally convinced that those who sought the DLS advice could not have give them the full facts, since DLS are usually spot on with these issues, and I would not have expected them to offer different advice to the conclusions of the HofL Inquiry - MOD did not give them the full facts before the FAI either, and we have written proof of this. I suppose in mitigation one might argue that DLS would never have had the full facts because the Board hadn’t investigated them)
Thirdly, and ironically, of course there is the can of worms on the airworthiness and CAR/RTS issues that the Board's flawed investigation, and even more flawed analysis, together with this unjust verdict by the ROs have caused to be exposed. A just verdict would probably have left these issues buried. Whether these flaws were an indirect or even direct cause of the accident I do not know – unlike others I am not making any claims to know the cause or pronounce on guilt. I also do not know whether Lord Philip will look at this area, but the scandal here is at least as big as Haddon-Cave exposed on the Nimrod accident, and in some ways it is worse since, in my view, the failure to expose these issues at that time meant that the RAF was allowed to continue with its inadequate airworthiness and "fitness for purpose" policies and compromise its duty of care whilst yet more lives were lost to “airworthiness” related accidents over another 14 years.
I know that for the families clearing their sons’ names is the number one priority. I understand this, and I would not wish to see or do anything that prejudiced such an outcome – for that, and not speculation on the cause of the accident, is the prime reason for this thread, and, I assume, Lord Philip’s Review. However, I would also like to see Lord Philip pronounce on point 3 since I believe there are indeed some negligent and guilty parties in this area.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 10th Jan 2011 at 14:40.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
You have a very firm opinion on this case.
Are you really trying to tell us you have never seen, or at least read, the evidence given by Burke to the HOL enquiry?
If you havn't, then your opinion is about as valid as the Honourable Members of the HOL who rolled in from the bar to vote on the issue.
If you have, your flying experience gained a few years before, must tell you it was vital evidence to be considered by the BOI.
You have a very firm opinion on this case.
Are you really trying to tell us you have never seen, or at least read, the evidence given by Burke to the HOL enquiry?
If you havn't, then your opinion is about as valid as the Honourable Members of the HOL who rolled in from the bar to vote on the issue.
If you have, your flying experience gained a few years before, must tell you it was vital evidence to be considered by the BOI.
You may get an opinion from Caz on this but JP will never be drawn on it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
John Blakeley. Thanks for your three points above. I daresay you have already made them to Lord Philips, and we can expect him to give them the consideration they deserve. Regards JP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No John. Attention to detail is not waiting for others to see the mistake(or inconsistancy) and then correcting it with bad grace. Had you admitted to a keyboard cock-up we would have understood, but not necessarily believed.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there no one else on this forum who is willing to agree or disagree with Chinook240's statement that the STANS was not "connected" to the horizontal situation indicators?
Is it to much to ask that we clearly determine just what the navigation system and the flight instruments could do?
It could hardly be "OPSEC" (or whatever you want to call sensitive) as other a/c of the time (mil & civil) had the facility.
There may have been a reason why Doppler/GPS track data was not used to drive the CDIs of the HSIs at the time in HC2s - if so, surely this anomaly is of interest to this case.
Is it to much to ask that we clearly determine just what the navigation system and the flight instruments could do?
It could hardly be "OPSEC" (or whatever you want to call sensitive) as other a/c of the time (mil & civil) had the facility.
There may have been a reason why Doppler/GPS track data was not used to drive the CDIs of the HSIs at the time in HC2s - if so, surely this anomaly is of interest to this case.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe I saw Cazatou 'grazing' here this morning? Since I cannot see his posts at the moment, can anyone tell me if he has managed to answer JB's questions?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing Answers
P1, SFP and BOAC,
You are all correct - I have long ago given up expecting answers to factual questions, and I guess we are all used to getting oft repeated speculative opinions in lieu. I wonder if Caz and JP have put anything forward to Lord Philip's Review?
JB
You are all correct - I have long ago given up expecting answers to factual questions, and I guess we are all used to getting oft repeated speculative opinions in lieu. I wonder if Caz and JP have put anything forward to Lord Philip's Review?
JB
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intuition tells me that at least one of them will be praying hard to a much higher judge than Lord Philip that the verdict stands and the matter simply goes away.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz, you're correct, and I admit to a keyboard cock-up. However it gave you and your twin something to grab at. More's the pity you cannot or will not answer the questions which have been put to you. That would be a worthwhile exercise.
When I want a good laugh, I enter this thread. For sheer puerile playground bickering, without descending into gutter language, this has to be the best forum around.
I have to suggest that nothing is going to be resolved by this correspondence, and that people could do well to get out more. Including me.
But then, I was not aircrew so am not privy to the workings of the collective mind.
I'll pop back from time to time to check up.
[now this gives BOTH sides a chance to find a common foe, and kiss and make up ....... blame the MetMan, he's used to it]
"When I'm right, no-one remembers, when I'm wrong no-one forgets"
I have to suggest that nothing is going to be resolved by this correspondence, and that people could do well to get out more. Including me.
But then, I was not aircrew so am not privy to the workings of the collective mind.
I'll pop back from time to time to check up.
[now this gives BOTH sides a chance to find a common foe, and kiss and make up ....... blame the MetMan, he's used to it]
"When I'm right, no-one remembers, when I'm wrong no-one forgets"