Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Abbey Road,
I did not hear from WK about the resizing of the pics so I deleted his post that contained the pics, which made the page more than double width. WK is not the only one who posts and we have to think of those who want to read them.
I did not hear from WK about the resizing of the pics so I deleted his post that contained the pics, which made the page more than double width. WK is not the only one who posts and we have to think of those who want to read them.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
That was never my intention and with what is currently happening I suspect the two main protagonists on that matter will be keeping their heads firmly down, one will probably be very busy seeking legal advice as this ball of string unravels
That was never my intention and with what is currently happening I suspect the two main protagonists on that matter will be keeping their heads firmly down, one will probably be very busy seeking legal advice as this ball of string unravels
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
PPRuNe Pop, many thanks for your 'housekeeping' input.
The report currently being discussed has been in the House of Commons library for a couple of years and a copy is in the Hands of Lord Phillip too.
There has clearly been a huge amount of work going on behind the scenes, and I am grateful for those who have kept the momentum going during my 'time away from the front' and since my return.
Don't forget that Lord Philip is carrying out a Review, and not an Inquiry. His Lordship's remit is to review all available evidence and information relating to what has gone on before and to report his findings of that. It is hoped that this will be completed around the middle of the year.
There is no indication as to which way his Lordship will find and I believe that to be right and proper.
Final bend for the Campaign, Abbey Road? More a last roll of the dice for the MoD I feel. That said, nothing is being taken for granted, and the hard work continues until the Review is officially concluded.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The report currently being discussed has been in the House of Commons library for a couple of years and a copy is in the Hands of Lord Phillip too.
There has clearly been a huge amount of work going on behind the scenes, and I am grateful for those who have kept the momentum going during my 'time away from the front' and since my return.
Don't forget that Lord Philip is carrying out a Review, and not an Inquiry. His Lordship's remit is to review all available evidence and information relating to what has gone on before and to report his findings of that. It is hoped that this will be completed around the middle of the year.
There is no indication as to which way his Lordship will find and I believe that to be right and proper.
Final bend for the Campaign, Abbey Road? More a last roll of the dice for the MoD I feel. That said, nothing is being taken for granted, and the hard work continues until the Review is officially concluded.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 13th Apr 2011 at 17:46.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel obliged to enquire...
What was gained by yesterday's news 'splash'.
This information was not new. It was already in the hands of the Phillip Review. The Phillip review is the only game in town. Not just at the moment, but possibly the last realistic opportunity to set the record straight.
It seems to me nothing could have been gained, and much goodwill could have been lost by such an intrusion, at a very delicate time! So I'm absolutely intrigued to know who pushed this particular button, and who they consulted. I do hope they haven't done any damage!
So why rock the boat....
What was gained by yesterday's news 'splash'.
This information was not new. It was already in the hands of the Phillip Review. The Phillip review is the only game in town. Not just at the moment, but possibly the last realistic opportunity to set the record straight.
It seems to me nothing could have been gained, and much goodwill could have been lost by such an intrusion, at a very delicate time! So I'm absolutely intrigued to know who pushed this particular button, and who they consulted. I do hope they haven't done any damage!
Does anyone feel that the campaign is around the final bend, with the home straight and finishing line in view?
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 13th Apr 2011 at 17:42.
PPRuNe Pop,
Ahh! That explains it! It is just that your text against Walt's name didn't make any sense - if you had, perhaps, signed it with 'PPRuNe Pop' I would have clicked! Sorry!
Brian,
My comment about "Does anyone feel that the campaign is around the final bend, with the home straight and finishing line in view?" was merely to elicit, from those in-the-know (yourself included, of course), what the feeling is about the effect of this 'long lost' report on the Phillip Review and the whole general campaign. Your expressed opinion on a "last roll of the dice for the MoD" is certainly oneway of looking at it- thanks for that.
Tandem,
"Rock the boat"? Nah, you've lost me there, sorry.
Ahh! That explains it! It is just that your text against Walt's name didn't make any sense - if you had, perhaps, signed it with 'PPRuNe Pop' I would have clicked! Sorry!
Brian,
My comment about "Does anyone feel that the campaign is around the final bend, with the home straight and finishing line in view?" was merely to elicit, from those in-the-know (yourself included, of course), what the feeling is about the effect of this 'long lost' report on the Phillip Review and the whole general campaign. Your expressed opinion on a "last roll of the dice for the MoD" is certainly oneway of looking at it- thanks for that.
Tandem,
"Rock the boat"? Nah, you've lost me there, sorry.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Abbey Road
My "why the rock the boat" comment was aimed at those responsible for yesterday's news 'splash'. Though I do see you offered a "well done to all those concerned"
I would be very grateful if you could explain why those concerned 'did well'. What do you think it has achieved. Were the pilot's families consulted beforehand, or are they not important.
To be honest if we are anywhere near the home straight, or finishing line, I do hope yesterday's guffaw doesn't come back to haunt us in the same way as Neil Kinnock's 1992 Sheffield Rally speech!!!
I think my overwhelming reaction is, why bloody now!
My "why the rock the boat" comment was aimed at those responsible for yesterday's news 'splash'. Though I do see you offered a "well done to all those concerned"
I would be very grateful if you could explain why those concerned 'did well'. What do you think it has achieved. Were the pilot's families consulted beforehand, or are they not important.
To be honest if we are anywhere near the home straight, or finishing line, I do hope yesterday's guffaw doesn't come back to haunt us in the same way as Neil Kinnock's 1992 Sheffield Rally speech!!!
I think my overwhelming reaction is, why bloody now!
One needs to recognise that;
a. This report was the subject of questions by the Public Accounts Committee to the Chief of Defence Procurement in March 1998, when CDP admitted the issues it reported (systemic airworthiness failings and, specifically, problems on Chinook HC Mk2) still existed. That is public knowledge and has been commented on numerous times on this, Nimrod and C130 threads. One hopes this information was submitted to previous inquiries and in previous submissions, not just to Lord Philip. Assuming it was, is it not astonishing it was ignored?
b. MoD (via Minister for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram) are on record as denying the main issues of the report (in doing so, wholly contradicting the above evidence to the PAC and, subsequently, the Haddon-Cave Report); issues that the BBC report captioned. I would like to think previous submissions sought to refute this claim. If so, these overtures were clearly ignored and one should ask why.
As stated, this report is nothing new. MoD's reaction to it has been in the public domain for at least 13 years and can be read in Hansard. Any investigative journalist worth his salt could track this down and recognise immediately the story therein - that MoD have consistently lied on this and other cases and, had the report and others like it been implemented, many lives would have been saved. Perhaps the media see this as a public interest story. It should certainly interest all those who serve.
Perhaps one should ask why no action was taken by the recipients in 1992, some of whom are the Campaign's most vocal opponents. Is Lord Philip to interview them? If they had done their duty, perhaps more cognisance would have been taken of Boscombe Down's recommendation that the aircraft should NOT enter service until made safe. An all too common theme I'm afraid.
a. This report was the subject of questions by the Public Accounts Committee to the Chief of Defence Procurement in March 1998, when CDP admitted the issues it reported (systemic airworthiness failings and, specifically, problems on Chinook HC Mk2) still existed. That is public knowledge and has been commented on numerous times on this, Nimrod and C130 threads. One hopes this information was submitted to previous inquiries and in previous submissions, not just to Lord Philip. Assuming it was, is it not astonishing it was ignored?
b. MoD (via Minister for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram) are on record as denying the main issues of the report (in doing so, wholly contradicting the above evidence to the PAC and, subsequently, the Haddon-Cave Report); issues that the BBC report captioned. I would like to think previous submissions sought to refute this claim. If so, these overtures were clearly ignored and one should ask why.
As stated, this report is nothing new. MoD's reaction to it has been in the public domain for at least 13 years and can be read in Hansard. Any investigative journalist worth his salt could track this down and recognise immediately the story therein - that MoD have consistently lied on this and other cases and, had the report and others like it been implemented, many lives would have been saved. Perhaps the media see this as a public interest story. It should certainly interest all those who serve.
Perhaps one should ask why no action was taken by the recipients in 1992, some of whom are the Campaign's most vocal opponents. Is Lord Philip to interview them? If they had done their duty, perhaps more cognisance would have been taken of Boscombe Down's recommendation that the aircraft should NOT enter service until made safe. An all too common theme I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
I see nothing in your reply that explains 'why now'!
Nor do I read anything that explains why this attack had to be broadcast via the BBC, rather than with a little more discretion! Or were you just upset that the campaign group didn't seem interested, and as you say "Lord Philip simply will not respond to such submissions of key evidence."
I know this subject is your hobby horse, but it cannot be positively linked to events on the day. Because we don't know what caused the accident, and we likely never will. It serves as possibly significant (and damning) background information. It is NOT the main event here!!! Though I accept it has the potential to become so in it's own right, and those responsible deserve to be hanged, once this terrible injustice is corrected!
If this review fails to find in favor of the pilots, it will be no skin off your nose, however for those two families, it will be yet another utterly devastating turn of events.
I think they, and therefor the campaign group, should be shown a little more respect! Don't you..
I see nothing in your reply that explains 'why now'!
Nor do I read anything that explains why this attack had to be broadcast via the BBC, rather than with a little more discretion! Or were you just upset that the campaign group didn't seem interested, and as you say "Lord Philip simply will not respond to such submissions of key evidence."
I know this subject is your hobby horse, but it cannot be positively linked to events on the day. Because we don't know what caused the accident, and we likely never will. It serves as possibly significant (and damning) background information. It is NOT the main event here!!! Though I accept it has the potential to become so in it's own right, and those responsible deserve to be hanged, once this terrible injustice is corrected!
If this review fails to find in favor of the pilots, it will be no skin off your nose, however for those two families, it will be yet another utterly devastating turn of events.
I think they, and therefor the campaign group, should be shown a little more respect! Don't you..
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 13th Apr 2011 at 21:22.
tandemrotor:
What boat? This review isn't the personal property of you, me, tuc, The MOD, or even the Mull Group. Lord Philip is investigating all aspects of this tragedy. With all due respect (and that is sincerely said) the issue of reversing the Air Marshals' infamous finding against the deceased pilots is not the only one, and indeed is not in His Lordship's power, for only the RAF can do that. The primary point of this Review is to save lives that might otherwise be lost in avoidable accidents, by repairing the systemic damage to UK Military Airworthiness that CHART was intended to do nearly 20 years ago. If it had been implemented Mull would very probably not have occurred, indeed over 60 lives lost since may well have been saved.
That is the boat that needs rocking and I applaud the attention that has been drawn to it. I am not sure which boat concerns you. If it is the Review's, I see no conflict there, for as tuc has said this was already in the public domain, though not its consciousness I suspect. If you mean the MOD's or the RAF's, and imply that by malevolent spite they will not reverse the finding come what may, then I suggest that will be par for the course, and tells you more about them than anyone who posts here.
So why rock the boat....
That is the boat that needs rocking and I applaud the attention that has been drawn to it. I am not sure which boat concerns you. If it is the Review's, I see no conflict there, for as tuc has said this was already in the public domain, though not its consciousness I suspect. If you mean the MOD's or the RAF's, and imply that by malevolent spite they will not reverse the finding come what may, then I suggest that will be par for the course, and tells you more about them than anyone who posts here.
I see nothing in your reply that explains 'why now'!
Tandemrotor
You must ask the BBC what prompted them to contact family members at this time. I will not discuss private messages or confidences, but you know I have stated the BBC did not initiate any contact with me, nor I them. Full stop. Therefore, I find your post unnecessarily personal and misdirected. You are under a misapprehension which I merely seek to correct, as I respect your position on this matter.
I do not know if the Campaign group are interested. I am not and never have been privy to any of their discussions. That is why I asked if they have played this significant card before. 13 years is a long time to sit on such crucial information which, as one eminent contributor stated correctly on TV, would probably have made the ROs think twice about overturning the BoI. Having overturned the BoI and blamed the pilots, it became imperative, to them and the RAF, that this report be buried.
That is why the questions asked by Dervish above are so crucial. Who knew of this report at the time and were they linked to the decision making chain of command that accused the pilots? It is this aspect which makes the report, and the general subject of MoD knowingly compromising airworthiness, far more than “possibly significant background information”. If there is a link, then it is not background, it is front and centre and a smoking gun.
For example, did Director Flying Safety know of it? Did it influence his advice to the ROs and CAS? (It is common knowledge the ROs and CAS were advised against their stance). If so, in one small step you have a situation whereby those whom you directly target KNOWINGLY ignored both this report and the FACT that previous Chinook losses and fatalities had been SOLELY attributed to SYSTEMIC airworthiness failings. I did not say this, the RAF did, in an official report.
In the years since 1994, MoD have constantly trotted out the argument that Chinook has had a good safety record since 1994. But, have the Campaign Group pointed out that, in November 1993 (when Spiers and Bagnall signed their respective Releases) it had the most APPALLING and deadly record and for SEVEN years the RAF had been sitting on various reports which offered the reason why and the solution (implement mandated policy, while rescinding destructive and contradictory policies) yet done NOTHING? As I said, this report is just one of many.
I ask again. When did the Campaign Group first receive this report and submit a detailed analysis? And what say you if it can be proven the ROs and CAS ignored advice based on this report?
My apologies for airing this in public but, as you know, my e-mails and PMs go unanswered. I think other contributors and interested parties need to know what is, or isn’t, going on.
“Why now?”
You must ask the BBC what prompted them to contact family members at this time. I will not discuss private messages or confidences, but you know I have stated the BBC did not initiate any contact with me, nor I them. Full stop. Therefore, I find your post unnecessarily personal and misdirected. You are under a misapprehension which I merely seek to correct, as I respect your position on this matter.
I do not know if the Campaign group are interested. I am not and never have been privy to any of their discussions. That is why I asked if they have played this significant card before. 13 years is a long time to sit on such crucial information which, as one eminent contributor stated correctly on TV, would probably have made the ROs think twice about overturning the BoI. Having overturned the BoI and blamed the pilots, it became imperative, to them and the RAF, that this report be buried.
That is why the questions asked by Dervish above are so crucial. Who knew of this report at the time and were they linked to the decision making chain of command that accused the pilots? It is this aspect which makes the report, and the general subject of MoD knowingly compromising airworthiness, far more than “possibly significant background information”. If there is a link, then it is not background, it is front and centre and a smoking gun.
For example, did Director Flying Safety know of it? Did it influence his advice to the ROs and CAS? (It is common knowledge the ROs and CAS were advised against their stance). If so, in one small step you have a situation whereby those whom you directly target KNOWINGLY ignored both this report and the FACT that previous Chinook losses and fatalities had been SOLELY attributed to SYSTEMIC airworthiness failings. I did not say this, the RAF did, in an official report.
In the years since 1994, MoD have constantly trotted out the argument that Chinook has had a good safety record since 1994. But, have the Campaign Group pointed out that, in November 1993 (when Spiers and Bagnall signed their respective Releases) it had the most APPALLING and deadly record and for SEVEN years the RAF had been sitting on various reports which offered the reason why and the solution (implement mandated policy, while rescinding destructive and contradictory policies) yet done NOTHING? As I said, this report is just one of many.
I ask again. When did the Campaign Group first receive this report and submit a detailed analysis? And what say you if it can be proven the ROs and CAS ignored advice based on this report?
My apologies for airing this in public but, as you know, my e-mails and PMs go unanswered. I think other contributors and interested parties need to know what is, or isn’t, going on.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 7731 has it in a nutshell.
The Reviewing Officers never had the evidence to change the original findings of the BOI.
It is the insistence of the MOD that "New Evidence" be found to overtake the Gross Negligence findings that has led to the extensive digging into Airworthiness and other issues, which may well have been left dormant.
Tucumseh (and others), have shown that not only was the aircraft proven to be Unairworthy, but the MOD have systematically ( and possibly criminally) attempted to hide the fact from this, and previous reviews.
Tandemrotor,
This Genie was well and truly out of the bottle before the latest BBC article.
You underestimate Lord Phillip if you think it will influence him in any way.
I can see that you would like to keep the Gross Negligence and Airworthiness issues separate, but I fear that is no longer possible.
The Reviewing Officers never had the evidence to change the original findings of the BOI.
It is the insistence of the MOD that "New Evidence" be found to overtake the Gross Negligence findings that has led to the extensive digging into Airworthiness and other issues, which may well have been left dormant.
Tucumseh (and others), have shown that not only was the aircraft proven to be Unairworthy, but the MOD have systematically ( and possibly criminally) attempted to hide the fact from this, and previous reviews.
Tandemrotor,
This Genie was well and truly out of the bottle before the latest BBC article.
You underestimate Lord Phillip if you think it will influence him in any way.
I can see that you would like to keep the Gross Negligence and Airworthiness issues separate, but I fear that is no longer possible.
Last edited by dalek; 14th Apr 2011 at 12:43.
Airworthiness and BBC debate
Forgive this long post, but I cannot be the only one puzzled by the recent exchange of posts following the BBC broadcasts. (I receive BBC Ulster here and they put out a quite different interview, in content and tone).
What puzzles me is the attitude of the Mull Campaign Group to Tecumseh’s statements on airworthiness. Let me get two cast iron facts out of the way first of all. The Mk2 was not airworthy, as defined by MoD’s regulations. According to the RAF report unearthed by the BBC, nor was the Mk1.
What the report said about Mk1 automatically applied to Mk2. The reporter was asked this on BBC Ulster and replied that the report mentioned “Mk2” over 40 times, which is not exactly a “Mk1 only” report as MoD would have us think.
The only alternative is that in the 15 months following the report all the problems were fixed. As Tecumseh says, they weren’t, because the Chief of Defence Procurement admitted it to the Public Accounts Committee in 1998 and is published in Hansard. I took time to read this and it explains just about every concern we express on this forum. What I found amazing is that its recommendations were basically repeated by Haddon-Cave, 10 years later.
So, I have thought about Why, When, What, How, Who.
Why, I think, is obvious. The aircraft should not have flown and even if the pilots made a mistake there is a large degree of shared blame. As John Blakeley said on the programme, if known to the BoI this would probably have prevented the gross negligent verdict because there would be no choice but to include senior officers’ maladministration.
When. Brian Dixon confirmed the report is common knowledge, saying it has been in the House of Commons Library for at least 2 years. It was obviously known to the 1998 Committee, otherwise where did they get the question to CDP from? This probably means they’d discussed it before. Tecumseh says the content of the report has been known since the late 80s, which I’m sure he would not claim without proof. Haddon-Cave said the problems started in 1998. Some may have thought it a jump for Tecumseh to claim late 80s, but this Chinook report sets the problems at that period, as it was prompted by the crashes of her late 80s. I lend credence to his posts because he was 100% right about Nimrod and C130, on the same subject. Therefore, the question “Why now” from Tandemrotor is puzzling. Why not? It was in the public domain. As Brian says, Lord Philip has the information and as Dalek says, he is bright enough to ignore any BBC agenda. Public interest I’d say. Not an issue.
What. Tecumseh, the BBC and those it interviewed point out establish fact. I have dug around the various links provided by the Mull Group and see they have submitted prominent sections on “airworthiness” in each submission, the last only a few years ago. So, I cannot understand Tandemtotor’s “hobby horse” comment to Tecumseh and that airworthiness should be treated as a separate subject, by a separate review or inquiry. Tandemrotor has been consistent with this view for a few years, not just in the last week. He has stated he was an advisor to one of the families so assume he was party to the previous submissions. Having presumably agreed with these submissions, why complain about Tecumseh also mentioning it? If he disagrees with the submissions, then say so and clarify.
How. Tandemrotor was unhappy about the BBC being engaged, saying the Mull Group / families (I am not sure to what extent they are one and the same) should have been consulted. From what has been posted here, what would the reply have been? Yes, by all means add to the body of evidence in our submissions supporting the pilots. Or, no, we don’t want new evidence to be heard. I’m confused. The answer would appear to depend on who the BBC contacted. Maybe they did and got the go ahead. There is another factor here. The Group concentrate on clearing the pilots. But 27 other people died and their families have a right to a voice.
This gets me to Who. Long ago I would have read the Mull Group’s submissions and thought, yes, that’s hit airworthiness on the head. But, as I read Tecumseh’s work I see there is far more to it than discussing the actions of maintainers at front line. The Group’s submissions are entirely valid but take a narrow and shallow view. That is probably due to the authors’ perspective and area of expertise. It is now pretty obvious there was no procurement input to these submissions. Does the Group not welcome the input of someone who can add flesh to this, from the procurement angle? Apparently not.
What is so different about the Mull Group and Tecumseh’s versions? Having eliminated Why, When, What and How, that leaves Who.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that someone is upset at who is exposed by the systemic failings reported by Tecumseh. I hesitate to say this, but the Group’s submissions on the subject are, intended or otherwise, aimed at low-level maintainers. A mistake made by the ZD576 BoI and on Nimrod as well, which rightly upset many at Kinloss. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense because I was one myself but if you read the various submissions and inquiries, I know that as a junior tech I wouldn’t have known how to solve them, but having followed the Nimrod and C130 threads I now have a better idea. This misdirection of “blame” is consistent with the common confusion between airworthiness and serviceability. It happens too often to be coincidence. It seems very clear that now Tecumseh has exposed the actions and contributions of very senior officers there is a reluctance to speak on the subject. He has often said here, ask who the decision protects. To paraphrase Chugalug, this silence and acceptance that senior officers are always right is what led to many deaths.
Sorry for the length. Just thinking out loud and there is no need to reply if you don’t want to. It is just an opinion but one based on many facts with only one assumption made at the end.
What puzzles me is the attitude of the Mull Campaign Group to Tecumseh’s statements on airworthiness. Let me get two cast iron facts out of the way first of all. The Mk2 was not airworthy, as defined by MoD’s regulations. According to the RAF report unearthed by the BBC, nor was the Mk1.
What the report said about Mk1 automatically applied to Mk2. The reporter was asked this on BBC Ulster and replied that the report mentioned “Mk2” over 40 times, which is not exactly a “Mk1 only” report as MoD would have us think.
The only alternative is that in the 15 months following the report all the problems were fixed. As Tecumseh says, they weren’t, because the Chief of Defence Procurement admitted it to the Public Accounts Committee in 1998 and is published in Hansard. I took time to read this and it explains just about every concern we express on this forum. What I found amazing is that its recommendations were basically repeated by Haddon-Cave, 10 years later.
So, I have thought about Why, When, What, How, Who.
Why, I think, is obvious. The aircraft should not have flown and even if the pilots made a mistake there is a large degree of shared blame. As John Blakeley said on the programme, if known to the BoI this would probably have prevented the gross negligent verdict because there would be no choice but to include senior officers’ maladministration.
When. Brian Dixon confirmed the report is common knowledge, saying it has been in the House of Commons Library for at least 2 years. It was obviously known to the 1998 Committee, otherwise where did they get the question to CDP from? This probably means they’d discussed it before. Tecumseh says the content of the report has been known since the late 80s, which I’m sure he would not claim without proof. Haddon-Cave said the problems started in 1998. Some may have thought it a jump for Tecumseh to claim late 80s, but this Chinook report sets the problems at that period, as it was prompted by the crashes of her late 80s. I lend credence to his posts because he was 100% right about Nimrod and C130, on the same subject. Therefore, the question “Why now” from Tandemrotor is puzzling. Why not? It was in the public domain. As Brian says, Lord Philip has the information and as Dalek says, he is bright enough to ignore any BBC agenda. Public interest I’d say. Not an issue.
What. Tecumseh, the BBC and those it interviewed point out establish fact. I have dug around the various links provided by the Mull Group and see they have submitted prominent sections on “airworthiness” in each submission, the last only a few years ago. So, I cannot understand Tandemtotor’s “hobby horse” comment to Tecumseh and that airworthiness should be treated as a separate subject, by a separate review or inquiry. Tandemrotor has been consistent with this view for a few years, not just in the last week. He has stated he was an advisor to one of the families so assume he was party to the previous submissions. Having presumably agreed with these submissions, why complain about Tecumseh also mentioning it? If he disagrees with the submissions, then say so and clarify.
How. Tandemrotor was unhappy about the BBC being engaged, saying the Mull Group / families (I am not sure to what extent they are one and the same) should have been consulted. From what has been posted here, what would the reply have been? Yes, by all means add to the body of evidence in our submissions supporting the pilots. Or, no, we don’t want new evidence to be heard. I’m confused. The answer would appear to depend on who the BBC contacted. Maybe they did and got the go ahead. There is another factor here. The Group concentrate on clearing the pilots. But 27 other people died and their families have a right to a voice.
This gets me to Who. Long ago I would have read the Mull Group’s submissions and thought, yes, that’s hit airworthiness on the head. But, as I read Tecumseh’s work I see there is far more to it than discussing the actions of maintainers at front line. The Group’s submissions are entirely valid but take a narrow and shallow view. That is probably due to the authors’ perspective and area of expertise. It is now pretty obvious there was no procurement input to these submissions. Does the Group not welcome the input of someone who can add flesh to this, from the procurement angle? Apparently not.
What is so different about the Mull Group and Tecumseh’s versions? Having eliminated Why, When, What and How, that leaves Who.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that someone is upset at who is exposed by the systemic failings reported by Tecumseh. I hesitate to say this, but the Group’s submissions on the subject are, intended or otherwise, aimed at low-level maintainers. A mistake made by the ZD576 BoI and on Nimrod as well, which rightly upset many at Kinloss. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense because I was one myself but if you read the various submissions and inquiries, I know that as a junior tech I wouldn’t have known how to solve them, but having followed the Nimrod and C130 threads I now have a better idea. This misdirection of “blame” is consistent with the common confusion between airworthiness and serviceability. It happens too often to be coincidence. It seems very clear that now Tecumseh has exposed the actions and contributions of very senior officers there is a reluctance to speak on the subject. He has often said here, ask who the decision protects. To paraphrase Chugalug, this silence and acceptance that senior officers are always right is what led to many deaths.
Sorry for the length. Just thinking out loud and there is no need to reply if you don’t want to. It is just an opinion but one based on many facts with only one assumption made at the end.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time well spent, Dervish.
"But 27 other people died and their families have a right to a voice." - this is, of course, a vital point. In reality, in my mind, it suggests that this thread, which began (rightly) as an effort to revise an incorrect verdict on the crew, has now inadvertently found itself in a much wider field. I am not sure that Brian and his group quite envisaged exactly what stones would be over-turned as a result of their campaign. I wonder if it is time to ask the mods to consider a new thread here on the 'big picture', allowing Brian et al to continue on the original course which is so important to them?
Like Dervish and others, I can see no harm in the further exposure of errors at any level and surely these must strengthen Brian's hand?
"But 27 other people died and their families have a right to a voice." - this is, of course, a vital point. In reality, in my mind, it suggests that this thread, which began (rightly) as an effort to revise an incorrect verdict on the crew, has now inadvertently found itself in a much wider field. I am not sure that Brian and his group quite envisaged exactly what stones would be over-turned as a result of their campaign. I wonder if it is time to ask the mods to consider a new thread here on the 'big picture', allowing Brian et al to continue on the original course which is so important to them?
Like Dervish and others, I can see no harm in the further exposure of errors at any level and surely these must strengthen Brian's hand?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The focus on the airworthiness issue bothers me. It is obvious that there have been major failings in airworthiness for decades and, invariably, these failings are amplified during high profile BOIs. My concern is that the broadening airworthiness argument rightly casts doubt on findings but it does not necessarily provide cause. Personally I'm happy with 'doubt' but I wonder whether all those who were/are directly affected would be equally content. Whilst the airworthiness discussion continues we must continue to entertain rational arguments that attempt to identify the cause of this particular crash. Not having this discussion would be a disservice to our lost colleagues.
I find the whole 'unairworthiness' debate extremely interesting, as I still fly the Mk2/3 I'd really like to know if its now 'airworthy'. In particular, I'd like to know how and when it become 'airworthy'.
I understand that this has no relevance to the Mull debate, and I don't expect a rsponse from anyone here, but you appreciate that, as per Haddon-Cave, it would be reassurring to know.
I understand that this has no relevance to the Mull debate, and I don't expect a rsponse from anyone here, but you appreciate that, as per Haddon-Cave, it would be reassurring to know.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB - surely we all recognise that there never can be a determinable 'cause'? There is insufficient information available to establish this. It has to go down as 'cause not determined'.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB
You may not agree with my particular line but at least I agree with your statement that rational explanations for cause should be explored here - where else?
BOAC
Rubbish - there is plenty of data that establishes much of what was and was not going on - just have to remove the blinkers.
You may not agree with my particular line but at least I agree with your statement that rational explanations for cause should be explored here - where else?
BOAC
Rubbish - there is plenty of data that establishes much of what was and was not going on - just have to remove the blinkers.
I think a point I wanted to make was that it is not the contributors here on pprune who suddenly raised the airworthiness questions. The Board of Inquiry report did. Then the Mull Group in their submissions.
What probably exercises the minds of Tecumseh, Chugalug and others is that both stopped there, seemingly blissfully unaware the evidence they were hearing and reporting was of systemic airworthiness failings. To digress a second, what must the Nimrod and C130 families think of this lost opportunity to prevent the need for Haddon-Cave 20 years ago?
This is why I tried to rationalise why the Campaign would seemingly want to ignore this evidence, once it became clear it was part of a bigger malaise. It seems to me it is the one part of the tragedy that is incontrovertible fact.
It does not reveal the cause and I think that is the wrong way to look at it anyway. There is almost never a single cause, but a chain of events conspire against you. MoD concentrates on the final event, the few seconds before impact. It detracts from its organisational shortcomings that weakened the rest of the chain. The airworthiness failings noted by witnesses is a series of broken links in that chain and I wonder why this has never been properly pursued. I always seem to come back to this question. That is why I like to see it debated here because I share the view that this is the evidence that would have stopped Wratten and Day in their tracks.
Chinook 240, this may answer part of your question. An aircraft being unairworthy does not mean they all suddenly crash. It weakens the chain and increases probability of occurrence. In such a small fleet 6 crashes attributed to airworthiness failings is an alarming statistic. Perhaps what improved is as simple as learning from experience. This is a point Tecumseh makes best, talking of immaturity in 1994, but with time and experience that particular link was replaced. What this report from 1992 tells us is that this immaturity was known and ignored. Someone played fast and loose with aircrew lives and lost. That single fact should be enough to cast doubt on the verdict and I hope it has been made to the Review.
What probably exercises the minds of Tecumseh, Chugalug and others is that both stopped there, seemingly blissfully unaware the evidence they were hearing and reporting was of systemic airworthiness failings. To digress a second, what must the Nimrod and C130 families think of this lost opportunity to prevent the need for Haddon-Cave 20 years ago?
This is why I tried to rationalise why the Campaign would seemingly want to ignore this evidence, once it became clear it was part of a bigger malaise. It seems to me it is the one part of the tragedy that is incontrovertible fact.
It does not reveal the cause and I think that is the wrong way to look at it anyway. There is almost never a single cause, but a chain of events conspire against you. MoD concentrates on the final event, the few seconds before impact. It detracts from its organisational shortcomings that weakened the rest of the chain. The airworthiness failings noted by witnesses is a series of broken links in that chain and I wonder why this has never been properly pursued. I always seem to come back to this question. That is why I like to see it debated here because I share the view that this is the evidence that would have stopped Wratten and Day in their tracks.
Chinook 240, this may answer part of your question. An aircraft being unairworthy does not mean they all suddenly crash. It weakens the chain and increases probability of occurrence. In such a small fleet 6 crashes attributed to airworthiness failings is an alarming statistic. Perhaps what improved is as simple as learning from experience. This is a point Tecumseh makes best, talking of immaturity in 1994, but with time and experience that particular link was replaced. What this report from 1992 tells us is that this immaturity was known and ignored. Someone played fast and loose with aircrew lives and lost. That single fact should be enough to cast doubt on the verdict and I hope it has been made to the Review.
Dervish
I think you captured the essence very well. The only thing I’d say is that when using the term “chain” it is correct on the context of chain of events or airworthiness audit, but when considering the whole it is better to use the Reason (Swiss Cheese) Model as explained often by flipseal because that better demonstrates your point that a single event does not usually cause accidents. But I know exactly what you meant. Excellent.
To illustrate just one example of what Dervish talks about, the BoI gave Flt Lt Tapper a roasting over his “failure” to report (properly) the serial failures of SuperTANS.
Fine, I’ve no problem with that because if you don’t report, you can’t complain if it isn’t investigated. However, he had reported before with no progress.
BUT, and this is the whole point of what is being discussed at the moment, one does not stop there. One asks as WHY such an experienced, diligent and competent officer would do such a thing. At the time, any engineer involved in maintaining airworthiness (and I’m not talking about line techies but Engineering Authorities and MoD Technical Agencies - the named individual responsible for a given equipment) would immediately tell you that AMSO (RAF) had chopped all funding for Fault Investigations (never mind defect investigations, a quite different thing). That is, the world and his dog knew that in one sense it was wasted effort filling out a MF760/A because the RAF themselves had stopped further action.
That single issue would have revealed the systemic failings to the BoI. The BoI is full of such examples. As Dervish asks, why did they not go there? perhaps one should ask if the person who oversaw this policy change was a recipient of the CHART report mentioned by the BBC. (And you just know I know the answer, don't you?). So, does he rescind his policy and look stupid (and finger himself for previous accidents) or does he bury CHART?
I think you captured the essence very well. The only thing I’d say is that when using the term “chain” it is correct on the context of chain of events or airworthiness audit, but when considering the whole it is better to use the Reason (Swiss Cheese) Model as explained often by flipseal because that better demonstrates your point that a single event does not usually cause accidents. But I know exactly what you meant. Excellent.
To illustrate just one example of what Dervish talks about, the BoI gave Flt Lt Tapper a roasting over his “failure” to report (properly) the serial failures of SuperTANS.
Fine, I’ve no problem with that because if you don’t report, you can’t complain if it isn’t investigated. However, he had reported before with no progress.
BUT, and this is the whole point of what is being discussed at the moment, one does not stop there. One asks as WHY such an experienced, diligent and competent officer would do such a thing. At the time, any engineer involved in maintaining airworthiness (and I’m not talking about line techies but Engineering Authorities and MoD Technical Agencies - the named individual responsible for a given equipment) would immediately tell you that AMSO (RAF) had chopped all funding for Fault Investigations (never mind defect investigations, a quite different thing). That is, the world and his dog knew that in one sense it was wasted effort filling out a MF760/A because the RAF themselves had stopped further action.
That single issue would have revealed the systemic failings to the BoI. The BoI is full of such examples. As Dervish asks, why did they not go there? perhaps one should ask if the person who oversaw this policy change was a recipient of the CHART report mentioned by the BBC. (And you just know I know the answer, don't you?). So, does he rescind his policy and look stupid (and finger himself for previous accidents) or does he bury CHART?