Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had the privilege and honour to have worked with Brian for many years whilst contributing my own small part in this campaign I know he is far too modest to claim any credit for today's outcome, however there is no doubt that credit is due. While many well known names in Parliament have taken up this issue, and will rightly be publicly applauded for doing so, I am certain that we all - those serving, those who have served, and those who rely on the armed forces to do what they do - owe Brian a huge debt of gratitude for his selfless and unceasing work on behalf of the families of all who died that day.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very Low Orbit
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense and decency have prevailed at last. My congratulations to those who have fought against a miscarriage of justice for so long.
It's a shame that the author of this spectacularly ill-judged piece (which omits any mention of the burden of proof issue) in the Scotsman John McTernan: Pilots, not machines, caused the Chinook disaster - Scotsman.com didn't read the conclusions before he went to press yesterday.
It's a shame that the author of this spectacularly ill-judged piece (which omits any mention of the burden of proof issue) in the Scotsman John McTernan: Pilots, not machines, caused the Chinook disaster - Scotsman.com didn't read the conclusions before he went to press yesterday.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull the Other One
OK Wratten and Day may well have received poor advice from DLS.
If they had the IQ's of potatoes, they may even have accepted it.
But to stick their heads up their a$ses for 17 years and now use ignorance as a defence.
Nice to see at 5.1.4, Air Marshal Pulford finally came over from the dark side.
No mention of Sqn Ldr Burke this time, but Philip and team did seem to like the opinions of Pulford and Hine.
Wratten and Day. If you were too stupid to understand the "Burden of Proof" requirements, why did't you ask Derek Hine. Breathtaking arrogance, as Jeremy Paxman would say.
If they had the IQ's of potatoes, they may even have accepted it.
But to stick their heads up their a$ses for 17 years and now use ignorance as a defence.
Nice to see at 5.1.4, Air Marshal Pulford finally came over from the dark side.
No mention of Sqn Ldr Burke this time, but Philip and team did seem to like the opinions of Pulford and Hine.
Wratten and Day. If you were too stupid to understand the "Burden of Proof" requirements, why did't you ask Derek Hine. Breathtaking arrogance, as Jeremy Paxman would say.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Barbiesboyfriend, you state:
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:
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.....
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 also state:
I've never met or heard from anyone who doesn't tacitly admit that they almost certainly CFIT'd the thing.
I feel rather sorry for Barbie.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbies
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.
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.
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'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?
But you go on and put them up for a 'Good Show, if you like.
Why not some sort of medal too?
I find your comments regarding betting your life and awarding medals distasteful, please go away.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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?
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?