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 13th Jul 2011, 15:20
  #8001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 45
Posts: 1,016
I've been away from Prune for a while - however this was the first thread I checked on return. I shall be hoisting a cup of tea tonight, no booze allowed for what has been an extremely long fight, hard won.

There are not the words in the language that we ,the serving and ex, can use to fully express how proud and grateful we are to Brian Dixon and ALL who have worked, stamped their feet, written letters and harangued MP's etc.....

You all have behaved in the very best traditions (the navy would say habits, I know) of the RAF and finally cleared the name of two innocent men, who not only paid the price, but then could not even defend their reputations from MOD lies and chicanery - aided by two senior halfwits.

I think the only decent thing to do now is for wratten and day to go down on bended knee before the families - AND BEG FOR FORGIVENESS.

Good work all,
CS
cornish-stormrider is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 15:35
  #8002 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I wonder if I'm the only one who regards all this hearty congratulation as just a bit inappropriate.

For sure the quashing of the whole 'gross negligence' charge is correct as there's always a chance that they didn't display 'gross negligence'. So that's 'a good thing' as folk often say these days.

What are the chances though, that 'gross negligence' was exactly what they did? 99%?

We'll never know for sure what happened and I agree about dismissing the 'GN' charge, but they didn't exacty qualify for a 'Good Show' did they?
 
Old 13th Jul 2011, 15:38
  #8003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend View Post
but they didn't exacty qualify for a 'Good Show' did they?
You sure about that, as in 100% sure about that, or is it just what you think might be the case
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 15:39
  #8004 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Seldom.

I'd bet my life on it.

But you go on and put them up for a 'Good Show, if you like.

Why not some sort of medal too?
 
Old 13th Jul 2011, 15:48
  #8005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend View Post
Seldom.

I'd bet my life on it.
What a very strange thing to say, the bookies must love you
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 15:55
  #8006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Private Jet
Your point was very relevant.
The original ruling of gross negligence inferred “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” that it was pilot error – this effectively stonewalled further investigation into the crash for 17 years.
As the grounds the AVM's used were easily seen as baseless from the most basic analysis of the available data, it is possible that the verdict was politically motivated.
I suggested that this was the case many years ago, that it was to avoid public disquiet had there been any chance of, say, sabotage, and predicted that the pilots' names could be cleared when it was deemed safe to do so – apparently, the time has come.
All of the areas of concern arising from the airworthiness viewpoint (eg FADEC) could be discounted from objective consideration of the available data.
It is noteworthy that media (eg the Telegraph and the BBC) still tell the public that the crash occurred in “thick fog” when we know that this quite the wrong scenario of the local weather.
I don't want to rain on their parade but all the campaigners have left the public with is an impression that someone driving at 150 MPH in thick fog was not to blame as there were some irregularities with the vehicle's MOT.
The crew deserves better than this.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:05
  #8007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 30 Miles from the A1
Posts: 409
Very glad that justice has been served at last. Time to reconsider removing a couple of knighthoods to pay for the mental torture they have caused.
2Planks is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:13
  #8008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 780
Fox apologises:

BBC News - Apology as Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:23
  #8009 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It was correct to quash the charge of GN because that charge requires certain criteria to be met, and clearly they were not met. I also agree that 17 years is a long time to wait.

Maybe I am the only one (or one of a very few) who thinks that the 'backslapping all round' is unseemly? I don't know.

I've never met or heard from anyone who doesn't tacitly admit that they almost certainly CFIT'd the thing.

The crash site supported them doing a big pull-up so they nearly made it and if there was something wrong with their a/c, clearly it could still climb.

I've never heard of ANY alternative cause of the crash put forward. None.

IMHO, these guys should be grateful they had no CVR or DFDR, because if they had, it would have been all too clear what happened.
 
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:41
  #8010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Backslapping all round!

Without doubt this is great news. Well done for never giving up.
Controversial Tim is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:57
  #8011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Delta of Venus
Posts: 461
I've just read the posts subsequent to mine. I have no agenda to debate a point that is somewhat outside my area of experience. It seems to me that this exercise has been about semantics with regards a charge of "gross negligence" against the crew, which is just a factor of MOD rules and nothing else. Aircraft crash for one of the following reasons, technical fault (be it design or equipment failure), extreme weather events (eg excessive turb/windshear) or human error (be it pilot or anyone else involved). If the first 2 are discounted then it has to be the third. Whether or not this is classified as "gross negligence" or merely a very unfortunate "mistake" seems a little bit fascile to me considering people lost their lives.
Private jet is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:01
  #8012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 68
To Barbies boyfriend - You appear to miss the point.The AVMs concluded it was gross negligence without any real evidence to support it and ignoring their only policy on the standard of evidence. If this was applied in criminal cases and people went to jail for say, theft on the basis that they might have stolen it as we have no other explanation then rightly it would not be acceptable.
In this case, there were other factors acknowledged in the report but due to politics I suspect, a seriously flawed and to be honest, an incompetent judgement was made.
I have worked as both a criminal and air safety investigator and the original report published with the gross negligence conclusion was in my opinion a betrayal of the system, facts and crew. The effects of the AVM's personal views on the families of the crew were never considered - unprofessional to say the least.
it is my experience that accidents of this type are not caused by gross negligence but are the result of a chain of events- The Reason's cheese model. If human input contributed to the end result how can you quantify it?
The point you make about flight data recording - it would have been extremely useful but it is not available so speculating about what it might have shown is not useful and is indicative of the BOI methodology of apportioning blame rather than seeking cause. The MOD has much to learn from Civil aviation in the area of air safety. Huge steps have been made since this accident and I hope they continue.

It is my hope that the MOD is not too arrogant to ensure that such injustice does not occur again. Safety investigation is about understanding the cause to prevent recurrence, not pinning the blame on those who can not answer purely because it is the easiest course.
In my guises on this forum (I first joined in year one) I have met no one who would celebrate a tragedy, what is being celebrated here is the reversal of an injustice to two Airmen Pilloried without proper evidence.
I too will celebrate that and the positive effect just culture has on flight safety. To the families, I hope they can now pick up their lives and finally get closure from this nightmare.
Poltergeist is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:04
  #8013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,857
Barbiesboyfriend, you state:

Maybe I am the only one (or one of a very few) who thinks that the 'backslapping all round' is unseemly? I don't know.
Backslapping is due to those who have doggedly pursued the course of justice over the past 17 years. Without those efforts, Wratten and Days' wholly unjust finding would still be damning 2 very capable pilots.

You also state:

I've never met or heard from anyone who doesn't tacitly admit that they almost certainly CFIT'd the thing.
Well, meet one. I certainly do not believe that they CFIT'd (as you put it) the aircraft into the Mull.

I feel rather sorry for Barbie.....
BEagle is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:05
  #8014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 63
Posts: 1,461
IMHO, these guys should be grateful they had no CVR or DFDR, because if they had, it would have been all too clear what happened.
Something like "Here, hold my beer and watch this" no doubt...

I think you're missing the point here BBF... "The backslapping" I can see has not been for Tapper and Cook themselves but more for their families, the families of the other victims and Brian Dixon and the others that worked so hard for so long. I'll admit I have only scanned backwards briefly but I didn't see a single example of a "Way to go Rick" or such like.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:10
  #8015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Barbies

Maybe I am the only one (or one of a very few) who thinks that the 'backslapping all round' is unseemly? I don't know.
You have missed the point. Nobody is backslapping as a result of the tragic accident. People are rightly thanking those who deserve praise for a 17 year fight to overturn an injustice and it is fit and proper to do so.

I'd bet my life on it.

But you go on and put them up for a 'Good Show, if you like.

Why not some sort of medal too?
Well you weren't there were you? Only those who were know for sure which, once again, is rather the point.

I find your comments regarding betting your life and awarding medals distasteful, please go away.
jpboy is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:15
  #8016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
A most just result today and, while we should remember those who lost their lives, I must congratulate those who have campaigned over these years to clear the names of the pilots. How does one say "gross negligence" when no one actually knows what happened! One can think you know and you can apply your own "professional" opinion, but you will never "actually" know as there is no evidence to prove it. So it cannot then be stated it was "gross negligence".
ghostnav is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:16
  #8017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,671
1.1.6 The continuing debate is naturally distressing for the families involved.

In the light of Lord Phillips own words, surely more unsubstantiated opinions about pilot error are futile and distasteful.

It now seems that the MoD line has been held by sacrificing a junior officer in the Legal Branch. However, Lord Philip's vivid description of his meetings with Day and Wratten tell a much wider picture, most of which will not be new to anyone who saw Wratten on Newsnight all those years ago.

I was particularly interested in the legal advisor's comment that "the staff (ACM Day) gave the strong indication that they could not accept the Board of Inquiry’s conclusion" (4.4.9). Unfortunately LP doesn't seem to go into the reason.

Still, after about 10 years of emotional involvement in this debate I am thrilled that the Campaign has achieved its objective. They have lost several battles but won the war. Along the way I have "met" (virtually) some amazing people. What can I bore my friends with now?
pulse1 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:24
  #8018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 73
Posts: 370
Barbies B
CFIT? Given the limited evidence is as good a guess as any.
As is Technical Malfunction and Aircrew Error.
So no, I don't agree with you, because I have no idea which of the above is correct.
dalek is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:38
  #8019 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi everyone,
firstly, I have to apologise as this is a quick post as I have to be somewhere else in about 15 minutes (not the pub, sadly).

Barbie - there was no back slapping. Just a sense of Justice done and relief for the families who have carried this burden for far too long.

Thank you for your kind comments, but I am one of a number of people who have worked hard for today. Truly humbling to get mentioned by James Arbuthnot. I will admit to being satisfied with my contribution.

In this brief post, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the Cook and Tapper family for allowing me to help them on this long, difficult journey. You are honourable, decent people and it has been a privilege to be there for you. We have friendships that will last a lifetime.

I should also like to thank all at PPRuNe for allowing us so much bandwidth over the years. Your contribution can not be underestimated.

I am delighted for Rick and Jon and I hope that they are resting in peace finally. I also hope that today's decision allows the other 27 families to put this finally behind them.

In respect of the Air Marshals, I recall Wratten stating at some point that with Rank comes great responsibility. Step up Mr Wratten and take responsibility. You have been found wanting. Feel free to invite your colleage along as well.

Sorry it's a quick post.

My sincere thanks to everyone who has been instrumental, both in action as well as support, in the return of the reputations of two fine young aviators.

Regards all,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 17:44
  #8020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
I always knew the day would come when both pilots would be cleared -it must come as great news to the families. Much appreciation and thanks is owed to the efforts of many contributors on this thread. Well done to you all!!
tiarna is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.