Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Argus]

Hot 'n' High

Agree completely.

In the current post Iraq environment both in Oz and the UK, there’s a real need for our politicians to lift their game.

We need a politics where politicians speak in Parliament and on TV like normal people, setting out arguments in a rational manner, acknowledging the strength of opposing points of view, admitting previous mistakes, eschewing high blown rhetoric and the politics of personal abuse and deceit. We need a form of politics where statistics are no longer used in a deliberately misleading way; where issues are discussed and views put forward because politicians believe in them rather than for short term tactical gain; where politicians are motivated by concern for their country and its people, rather than mere self interest and political survival. Yet, too often, politicians behave as if scoring points against one another was the real art and purpose of politics.

Also, there is enormous danger for a free society where those who are elected to office are, because of the very fact that that they have been elected, distrusted. Increasingly, it is unelected bureaucrats, rather than Ministers, who decide policy. These ‘experts’ may offer useful advice. But politics is about more than expertise; it is about wider judgments of the national interest and recognition that decisions in one policy area can have profound consequences in other areas. In a democracy, it’s the people’s representatives, and not bureaucrats, who must take the decisions, after weighing up the opposing views and arguments.

It’s time for a new civility, accountability and seriousness in our nation’s politics. Politicians must find ways to restore faith in politics; and it won’t be easy. It will require fundamental changes to politicians’ behaviour. People want a new politics; an honest politics; and a politics that brings genuine improvement to people’s lives. It’s time for the politicians to deliver.

[ShyTorque]

Can't agree more. They're all in it for their perks and pensions and little else.

One example: a certain very senior politician extolls the virtues of our modernised, read "dumbed down", educational system (Oh yes it is) while sending his own offspring to a private school.

Similarly, he tells his "subjects" that a controversial vaccination is perfectly safe for children whilst refusing to confirm or deny whether his own children have been given that same vaccination. Amazing leadership...

Let's see now.....would our Prime Minister and his cronies prefer to retire to Hackney? Or perhaps Nottingham, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle or any other of the terribly depressed centres of our once fine manufacturing areas? Is he even aware they exist?

Or will it be a nice little villa in France or Italy?

Almost every week now, another new hare-brained scheme is put forward by the Ministry of Stupid Ideas. These are having a radical and harmful effect on our society.

There is one answer though. At this present time, although this government seem hell bent on destroying it, we do still live in a democracy. We all have a vote. We can and should all still use our vote, unlike last time when our government were re-elected on a vote of approximately 18%, because most of the population couldn't be bothered to get off their jacksy, go down the village hall and put a cross on a piece of paper.

I hope he takes in what has just happened in Spain.

This time, I'll vote for the Common Sense Party. All I've got to do is work out where they are....although I've got a fairly good idea.

Danny will probably pull this. We aren't supposed to talk politics any more. It's also off-thread, so my apologies to Brian Dixon. Just wanted to get it off my chest, it's been brewing for a while.

[Brian Dixon]

No apologies needed Shy. I agree with what has been said.

I will, if I may, take a quick moment to point out that just occasionally one decent chap slips through the net.

That chap is James Arbuthnot MP.

Initially he was a strong supporter of the negligence verdict. However, following a meeting with Capt. John Cook (Rick's father), James went off and did a little more independent research. He subsequently stood up during a Parliamentary debate on the Chinook accident and admitted he had been wrong, and that his opinion had now changed in support of the campaign. He also apologised for his initial stance. A most unusual and courageous Parliamentary occurrence.

He is now the current Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Group.

With regard the campaign, we are currently in the planning stage for the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the accident. Details will be made available as and when things have been confirmed.

That said, it is worth pointing out at this early stage, that all arrangements for the tenth anniversary will be related to the memories of 29 lost souls and their families, and not a campaign issue. The two, in my humble opinion, should remain separate.

Early Day Motion 371 has continued to collect signatures, and I am delighted to inform you all that it currently has a grand total of 152 signatures, with a further 18 signatures against the amendment. As I have said many a time, thank you so much to each and every one of you for your support.

Nearly ten years on and to still have this much support is clear testimony to the level of feeling of the injustice of the verdict. The MoD and Government should really take the hint. The campaign will not cease until this terrible wrong has been addressed and corrected.

My very best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[ShyTorque]

Thanks Brian.

Malcolm Rifkind, too, saw the light and had the guts to stand up and say so, did he not? Good on him also.

Up the revolution, eh?

[BEagle]

A friendly letter from my MP David Cameron today, attaching the following predictable and disappointing reply from Ingram:-

Thank you for your letter of 20 Feb quoting an e-mail from your constituent about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994.

I have no reason to believe that either of the Reviewing Officers (both of whom have now retired) have changed their opinion since they explained the reasoning behind their finding of neglgigence before the House of Lords Select Committee in 2002. Certainly, on the last occasion on which we contacted Sir John Day's office in respect of this subject (July 2003) there was no indication of a change of heart. The Ministry of Defence has always said that we would fully investigate any new evidence on this accident. However, no such evidence has been put forward and consequently there has been nothing to prompt either the Department or the Reveiwing Officers to remain anything other than convinced that the correct decision was reached.

I am sorry to send what I know will be a disappointing reply, but neither we, nor the Reviewing Officers, see any reason to overturn their original finding of Gross Negligence.

".....neither we, nor the Reviewing Officers, see any reason...". How very true.

[Arkroyal]

Typical Ingram.

I have no reason to believe that either of the Reviewing Officers (both of whom have now retired) have changed their opinion since they explained the reasoning behind their finding of neglgigence before the House of Lords Select Committee in 2002.

Stops a little short doesn't it? That'll be the same HoL select committee that rejected the Reviewing officers' findings then.

Why can't these fools see that it requires no new evidence in order to find that the original decision was flawed.

[Brian Dixon]

Many thanks BEagle for your persistance.

Whilst the letter from Ingram is little moe than a cut and paste paragraph from the MoD, it is interesting that he now feels the need to point out that both Reviewing Officers are now retired.

I wonder why that is?

You may consider writing back to him, stating that his belief that the reviewing officers have not changed their opinion is correct. However, that is exactly what it is - opinion. Not fact proved with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Also, as Ark correctly points out, the information the Reviewing Officers based their opinions on was, in actual fact, not entirely correct.

More evidence that the decision is unsafe!

As always, my thanks for your support.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[semirigid rotor]

OK I've bitten the bullet and started wading through all 57 pages (maybe more by the time I've finished). As a current helo pilot flying a FADEC equipped machine, has anybody got a working theory as to what happened on that awful day?

[ShyTorque]

Possibly an engine runaway up took place at a critical moment. This would explain the apparent discrepancy of the yachtsman's evidence that the aircraft was flying slowly and the aircraft hitting the ground at high power shortly afterwards. He said he thought it was possibly involved in a SAR because of its low speed when he saw it.

(I too fly a FADEC equipped aircraft, of a more modern spec than this type of aircraft had. Quite often, if we get a FADEC malunction, shutting the aircraft down completely and turning off the battery power removes the fault indication, leaving no evidence).

It is also feasible that an optical illusion took place in the marginal weather conditions.

Perhaps a navigational error, caused by the the TANS, occurred(apparently had been previously reported by other crews as playing up, no fault found or corrected by maintenance).

Maybe some other failure took place, after all, the co-pilot's i/c box was found in the emergency position.

Accident likely to be a combination of more than one thing.

Possibly, feasibly, perhaps, maybe, likely.

But evidence of the actual cause? Insufficient to be determined.

Gross Negligence? Unlikely.

Unjust, spiteful overturning of correct BOI verdict? Definitely.

[semirigid rotor]

Thanks for the reply, I'm still reading but can only get online when I've kicked the kids off!

The FADEC problem seems to me to be the most likely. I agree that initially they were flying at a sensible height and speed for the weather conditions at the time. But a high side FADEC failure at the turn point would have increased the work load ten fold. While all pilot training deals with a "traditional" engine failure - that is the engine ceases to produce power - do we know from the training records for the pilots concerned, if they received any training in "other kind of engine failure" or did they expect the failed FADEC to freeze? Did the Flight Reference Cards contain any info about High and Low side FADEC failures?

I'm sure Wessex pilots would like to jump in here, but it is a sad fact of life that sometimes experience and knowledge can get lost over time and lessons have to be relearned. I of course refer to the Gnome twin pac and it's fuel computers.

[walter kennedy]

SEMIRIGID
There is the question of the TACAN, which the crew would probably have relied upon rather than TANS, to get to the close in turning point had they got a useable reading. But no one seems to want to contemplate this.
The TACAN CU was set accordingly and this crew had grave misgivings about the accuracy of TANS.
Other crews who have done this run could clear this up as to what was the usual practice but seem somewhat shy about disclosing it.
The accident is wholly explained by simply running on too far by reference to a false reading on the TACAN when ground detail was obscured by the ground hugging mist.
Those who look for control faults must realise that the aircraft appears to have been in control for at least the last 5 seconds as the final evasive manouevre needed that much time to get them from the extended straight and level bit (Boeing simulation, etc) - this leaves a narrow window of slightly more than 10s for a control fault to have had effect and then clear while the pilots did nothing when the greatest danger was to carry straight on towards the high ground that they knew was there and that they were preparing to turn away from at close range AT ANY SECOND (this WAS their intended path) - no engine hiccup should have distracted them from that.
Of course, had the TACAN been used its nature is that it is accurate - unless the ground side was tampered with to give a false reading (which is ridiculously easy to do in practice). BUT this would have been sabotage and therefore the authorities immediately ruled it out ...????

[walter kennedy]

OK let's stick to basics just to clear the pilots' names:
a fresh inquiry is justified in that the RAF effectively misled both the Parliament and the FA inquiries on two major points:
1. The planned path.
2. The usual practice on that path.

wrt (1), look through the transcripts - the most obvious starting point for such a crash into terrain should surely be what were they intending to do? - I gather that this was a regular flight (a "milk run"?) involving coming in close to the Mull and then "handrailing" up the coast, at low level - I challenge anyone to get that scenario from transcripts from the inquiries - indeed, anyone would be shocked by the obfuscation on this basic point.

wrt (2), if this was a regular flight plan and the prevailing conditions were commonly adverse to seeing ground detail on the Mull - what were the usual practices? - why were no pilots who had done this type of flight before called before these inquiries to explain the difficulties and any special operational/security requirements imposed, and cosequently any special practices to get round those problems?

At the very least, they should be put on the spot by clear, straightforward questions on the above two points - after 10 years the most basic navigation aspects of this crash have not been dealt with to the satisfaction of at least one member of the public - anyone else share this view?

[semirigid rotor]

Thanks for that Walter.

After such a long time, chatting to friends etc. a certain amount of myth and rumour still surrounds the accident, and I'm just trying to get back to the original facts to make up my own mind. I've tried searching but cannot find the original report online - can anybody help there?

All I can say for sure is that I have more questions than answers.

[Brian Dixon]

Semi Rigid,
you could try the dedicated web site and follow the links. From there you will get an overview of the Report, and also details on how to obtain a full copy.

The full report has not gone online due to copyright etc.

Hope that helps, if not, please come back to me.

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[walter kennedy]

RADIO CONTACT
Of course, there is one other really obvious thing that, to my knowledge, has not been brought to closure - and it is one that any of you mil flyers should be on to:
the un-answered call from ZD576!
There are two sources from which this matter should have been cleared up:
(1) recordings at the various ground stations that could have picked them up (as suggested by someone else recently on this thread);
(2) in the apparent absence in recordings of any further calls either way between the a/c and ground, why was the ground controller not hauled before the Parl inq or FAI to make a clear statement - after all, a reply from ground was to be expected in the circumstances and there was time for this to have happened - and without this call, it needs explaining why ZD576 continued without prompting the ground controller again.

This issue has been too lightly ignored in the inquiries and yet it is very pertinent, surely?

[Arkroyal]

Walter said:

The accident is wholly explained by simply running on too far by reference to a false reading on the TACAN when ground detail was obscured by the ground hugging mist.

If that was so, then there'd be a pretty strong case for negligence. To do as you suggest would be attempting to fly IFR below VMC conditions, and I am quite sure that our men did not.

As one who had flown a similar route before, I would not have been surprised by getting no reply to transmissions. I'd simply wait until further up the coast, and speak to Maccrihanish once within line of sight.

THe whole point is that there is no evidence to support the finding arrived at by Wratten and Day.

[walter kennedy]

Arkroyal
The basic points that I made in the postings here on 1st & 2nd April still stand - what is wrong with clarifying the situation by raising those points at an inquiry and getting definitive answers from the horses' mouths?

[short&shapeless]

Walter, an additional inquiry could produce lots of detailed theories but in the end it would solve nothing. It doesn't matter what any number of experts say about the situation - the only 'horse's mouths' that matter cannot give evidence because tragically they are not with us to do so.

Any evidence from any other source is still only speculation - and under the rules in force at the time of the accident, because the crew were not alive to present their case, that was not good enough to determine a finding of gross negligence.

The original Board got it right and the 'powers that be' ignored their own rules to find otherwise. It is an absolute scandal that this is still rumbling along but all power to Brian and the others in their fight for justice for the families

S&S

[walter kennedy]

S & S
The “horses” I refer to in my posts on 1 & 2 April are:
Firstly, other pilots in that flight who had done the run before to answer the questions
<<What was the planned path>> and
<<what was the usual practice on that path>>; and
Secondly, the controller who could state why either recordings are not available after ZD576’s call or why it was unanswered.
This last point was dismissed by Arkroyal (in his posting of 3rd April) thus:
<<As one who had flown a similar route before, I would not have been surprised by getting no reply to transmissions. I'd simply wait until further up the coast, and speak to Macrihanish once within line of sight.>>
BUT the absence of any further communication (on record) beyond that call is odd and may be significant as follows:
ZD576 was supposed to get acknowledgement before entering particular airspace at low altitude as I recall and made the call at the appropriate time; now, this call was received and recorded at a ground station and so if a reply was made by that ground station there should have been no problem with that reply being recorded (obvious surely, at the source/ no propagation etc considerations);
Thus, either the reply was not made, or recording stopped at that critical point, or the recording has been withheld from the public domain.
If the reply was not made, the controller must be asked why not.
If the recordings did stop there, it should be established why so and the controller should state what was said.
There may be an explanation for the latter case (recordings withheld); for example, some information on, say, a perceived threat, may have been passed to the crew that may have changed the “milk run” into an operational flight – thus changing the flight rules somewhat (I hope the significance of this is apparent to some of you at least – on a routine flight, the VFR vs IFR simplistic argument has been used to dismiss any reliance upon TACAN for judging distance off the Mull when coming close in).

Anyway, why go into conjecture – as I have said, these fundamental aspects of the flight have not been addressed and yet the “horses” are available – they can’t all have gone for a walk in the woods ….

Oh and generally, I believe that the verdicts on the pilots was wrong and very unjust – a disgrace, in fact, But it is not enough to close this issue with the clearance of their names – although this would be a very good thing in its own right – do not forget that the UK’s top antiterrorist team went down that tragic day. Their demise opened the way for THAT peace process (that I am sure these guys would have vigorously opposed) with profound consequences for the people of Northern Ireland. Getting to the truth of what happened just may cast a different light on the sponsors of THAT process and break the deadlock before the spirit of the British people there.

[lightbob]

Walter,

Are you suggesting that the passengers on the flight were opposed to the peace process that was eventually hammered out? Or have I completely misunderstood you last paragraph?