Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PORTABLE DME ETC
Further to my previous response to this from John Purdey posted 6th August 2004
<<The other theories very from the improbable to the impossible; for example, we actually have one contributor who thinks that … and that after the crash he would dismantle his mobile transmitter and disappear. I ask you!>>
Sorry, in my last post I forgot to address this last point: the portable DME equipment (the DME transponder being just one function of a handheld multi function comms set) only weighs 28 ounces; I suppose you could dismantle it by unplugging an auxiliary battery pack and put it in your other pocket! And the “disappear” bit – well, they didn’t disappear but were still “… looking for our stuff” when challenged as to why they were there. I am puzzled why JP did not recognize the equipment that I was referring to – there must be tens of thousands of such sets in the US and UK armed forces and they have been around for a while.
Now on a more general point, several contributors have expressed frustration with the theories and broad discussion put forward on the causes of the crash (as opposed to the basic verdict of negligence) – I would like to say that this has been a useful forum and that such discussions here have at least yielded:
1 What the weather conditions were really like;
2 What the flight plan on this leg actually was:
3 That the error was a late turn rather than an incorrect climb.
Several big inquiries did not get this far, so please carry on all – detractors please consider how much further the inquiries could have got if the above three points had been established 10 years ago.
Further to my previous response to this from John Purdey posted 6th August 2004
<<The other theories very from the improbable to the impossible; for example, we actually have one contributor who thinks that … and that after the crash he would dismantle his mobile transmitter and disappear. I ask you!>>
Sorry, in my last post I forgot to address this last point: the portable DME equipment (the DME transponder being just one function of a handheld multi function comms set) only weighs 28 ounces; I suppose you could dismantle it by unplugging an auxiliary battery pack and put it in your other pocket! And the “disappear” bit – well, they didn’t disappear but were still “… looking for our stuff” when challenged as to why they were there. I am puzzled why JP did not recognize the equipment that I was referring to – there must be tens of thousands of such sets in the US and UK armed forces and they have been around for a while.
Now on a more general point, several contributors have expressed frustration with the theories and broad discussion put forward on the causes of the crash (as opposed to the basic verdict of negligence) – I would like to say that this has been a useful forum and that such discussions here have at least yielded:
1 What the weather conditions were really like;
2 What the flight plan on this leg actually was:
3 That the error was a late turn rather than an incorrect climb.
Several big inquiries did not get this far, so please carry on all – detractors please consider how much further the inquiries could have got if the above three points had been established 10 years ago.
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
The only smoked herrings around here, Mr Purdey, are assumptions that portray themselves as fact.
Posted with tongue firmly in cheek!
My best,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Posted with tongue firmly in cheek!
My best,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOrkER
It is indeed gratifying to see someone so intimately familiar with the case as yourself, to be taking such an interest in this particular part of cyberspace
As well as studying every written word on this affair, I imagine you also sifted through the wreckage of ZD576 on more than one occasion, sat through the Fatal Accident Inquiry, operated with the deceased crew members on SF chinook sorties, and flew various profiles towards the Mull of Kintyre, by helicopter
As did I!
Welcome.
Please forgive us if few are impressed by your arrogant and over bearing tone, it is just that, over the years, we have frequently been required to demonstrate our resilience in the face of just such attitudes from the MOD!
No doubt, at some stage you will wish to discuss specifics, quoting something or other as a 'fact', and my role will be to highlight the quality of such 'facts'. (Remember what the PAC said about them?)
For the future perhaps.
For the moment:
I was struck by your criticism, of some of the groups who had reviewed this case. You implied they had no expertise in the field of Air Accident Investigation, and therefore, their comments could be excluded from serious consideration.
Notwithstanding the fact that, to my recollection, NO independent review of this case (I believe there may have been as many as half a dozen) has felt able to draw the same conclusions as the Air Marshalls!
A number of issues follow from this:
A) What formal training did senior officers in the RAF receive in accident investigation, and how could the 'opinions' of more senior management figures be so different to those of the president of the BOI?
B) Aren't the ONLY professionals in this case, the AAIB? You remember, they are the ones who reported that they were unable to positively determine the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576, that much of the wreckage was destroyed by post-impact fire, that the possibility of control jam could not be excluded, that the possibility of a malfunction that left no physical evidence, could not be excluded etc.
Oh, and incidentally, I can't remember a single occasion when they have found a pilot 'negligent!'
I personally would categorise this as 'ENLIGHTENED' air accident investigation, rather than the military version, which uses 'blame' as a management tool for discouraging further accidents!
C) If I wished to design an air accident investigation policy, to accurately identify the true cause of accidents, I don't believe I would allow those at the head of the organisation being investigated, to decide (with no mechanism for appeal!) who was 'to blame!' Call me old fashioned, but it seems a little unreliable! Ever heard of Mount Erebus?
D) The truth is this. The 2 Air Marshalls played no role whatever in the 'investigation' of this accident. They are very busy people, who appointed a highly competent team to do that for them. However, when their team reported a finding that was unsatisfactory to them, they were forced to re-evaluate the SAME evidence in their own way, to divine 'their' JUDGEMENT.
If you seriously suggest that Sheriff Sir Steven Young (at the FAI) was somehow, not as competent, as our 2 senior military officers, at weighing evidence and reaching a judgement, I fear you "stretch credibility too far!"
Because you see, this case actually hinges, not on the PRESENCE of any particularly difficult technical facts, but rather, it is characterised by the ABSENCE of any persuasive evidence whatsoever.
Which is effectively what the PAC said, and why no extensive aviation knowledge is required to see that, a miscarriage of natural justice occured when the 2 Air Marshalls ignored the direction that the President of the BOI wrestled with. That is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
A standard that I, and many others, find absolutely in keeping with the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
As far as the briefing of minister is concerned, may I ask, who briefs them on the 'counter' case, to enable them to reach a 'balanced' view?
After all, once away from office, both the Prime Minister of the time, as well as the Secretary of State for Defence of 1994, and numerous other ministers, now feel it is time for the 'verdict' to be overturned.
I am unsurprised that the 2 Air Marshalls are fighting tooth and nail to maintain that they did nothing wrong. After all, it is now THEIR reputations at stake.
It is a shame that Flt Lts Cook, and Tapper are denied that luxury. WE are the ones who feel obliged to make THEIR voices heard!
Sooner or later, WOrkER, your life will move on, but there are many of us who, as long as we have breath in our bodies, will not rest until justice is served to these 2 young men.
You see, justice is too important for that.
Does that give YOU a "flavour of the challenge?"
Now, please could you explain "handrailing?"
It is indeed gratifying to see someone so intimately familiar with the case as yourself, to be taking such an interest in this particular part of cyberspace
As well as studying every written word on this affair, I imagine you also sifted through the wreckage of ZD576 on more than one occasion, sat through the Fatal Accident Inquiry, operated with the deceased crew members on SF chinook sorties, and flew various profiles towards the Mull of Kintyre, by helicopter
As did I!
Welcome.
Please forgive us if few are impressed by your arrogant and over bearing tone, it is just that, over the years, we have frequently been required to demonstrate our resilience in the face of just such attitudes from the MOD!
No doubt, at some stage you will wish to discuss specifics, quoting something or other as a 'fact', and my role will be to highlight the quality of such 'facts'. (Remember what the PAC said about them?)
For the future perhaps.
For the moment:
I was struck by your criticism, of some of the groups who had reviewed this case. You implied they had no expertise in the field of Air Accident Investigation, and therefore, their comments could be excluded from serious consideration.
Notwithstanding the fact that, to my recollection, NO independent review of this case (I believe there may have been as many as half a dozen) has felt able to draw the same conclusions as the Air Marshalls!
A number of issues follow from this:
A) What formal training did senior officers in the RAF receive in accident investigation, and how could the 'opinions' of more senior management figures be so different to those of the president of the BOI?
B) Aren't the ONLY professionals in this case, the AAIB? You remember, they are the ones who reported that they were unable to positively determine the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576, that much of the wreckage was destroyed by post-impact fire, that the possibility of control jam could not be excluded, that the possibility of a malfunction that left no physical evidence, could not be excluded etc.
Oh, and incidentally, I can't remember a single occasion when they have found a pilot 'negligent!'
I personally would categorise this as 'ENLIGHTENED' air accident investigation, rather than the military version, which uses 'blame' as a management tool for discouraging further accidents!
C) If I wished to design an air accident investigation policy, to accurately identify the true cause of accidents, I don't believe I would allow those at the head of the organisation being investigated, to decide (with no mechanism for appeal!) who was 'to blame!' Call me old fashioned, but it seems a little unreliable! Ever heard of Mount Erebus?
D) The truth is this. The 2 Air Marshalls played no role whatever in the 'investigation' of this accident. They are very busy people, who appointed a highly competent team to do that for them. However, when their team reported a finding that was unsatisfactory to them, they were forced to re-evaluate the SAME evidence in their own way, to divine 'their' JUDGEMENT.
If you seriously suggest that Sheriff Sir Steven Young (at the FAI) was somehow, not as competent, as our 2 senior military officers, at weighing evidence and reaching a judgement, I fear you "stretch credibility too far!"
Because you see, this case actually hinges, not on the PRESENCE of any particularly difficult technical facts, but rather, it is characterised by the ABSENCE of any persuasive evidence whatsoever.
Which is effectively what the PAC said, and why no extensive aviation knowledge is required to see that, a miscarriage of natural justice occured when the 2 Air Marshalls ignored the direction that the President of the BOI wrestled with. That is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
A standard that I, and many others, find absolutely in keeping with the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
As far as the briefing of minister is concerned, may I ask, who briefs them on the 'counter' case, to enable them to reach a 'balanced' view?
After all, once away from office, both the Prime Minister of the time, as well as the Secretary of State for Defence of 1994, and numerous other ministers, now feel it is time for the 'verdict' to be overturned.
I am unsurprised that the 2 Air Marshalls are fighting tooth and nail to maintain that they did nothing wrong. After all, it is now THEIR reputations at stake.
It is a shame that Flt Lts Cook, and Tapper are denied that luxury. WE are the ones who feel obliged to make THEIR voices heard!
Sooner or later, WOrkER, your life will move on, but there are many of us who, as long as we have breath in our bodies, will not rest until justice is served to these 2 young men.
You see, justice is too important for that.
Does that give YOU a "flavour of the challenge?"
Now, please could you explain "handrailing?"
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 10th Aug 2004 at 08:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Tandemrotor
It seems from your last post that you were a colleague of the lost crew, and your emotional post is thus very understandable.
I am not being patronising when I say that I am sure everyone sympathises with you and with all the families concerned in this tragedy.
Meanwhile, could you please favour us all with a straightforward reply to the questions put by WOrkER at 13.02 on 6th, and by yours truly at 17.15 on 7th?
(Just perhaps to remind you of my own well known views, of course it was difficult if not impossible for AAIB to find any evidence of post-crash technical failure. That was not the question. Under all the rules, and those of common sense, the crew should have, in good time, turned away from those hilltops, covered as they were with mist/fog/cloud. In failing to do so were they not negligent?).
Why is it that you and others cannot answer this question?
With all good wishes, as always...
John Purdey
It seems from your last post that you were a colleague of the lost crew, and your emotional post is thus very understandable.
I am not being patronising when I say that I am sure everyone sympathises with you and with all the families concerned in this tragedy.
Meanwhile, could you please favour us all with a straightforward reply to the questions put by WOrkER at 13.02 on 6th, and by yours truly at 17.15 on 7th?
(Just perhaps to remind you of my own well known views, of course it was difficult if not impossible for AAIB to find any evidence of post-crash technical failure. That was not the question. Under all the rules, and those of common sense, the crew should have, in good time, turned away from those hilltops, covered as they were with mist/fog/cloud. In failing to do so were they not negligent?).
Why is it that you and others cannot answer this question?
With all good wishes, as always...
John Purdey
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have from time to time poked my head around the door to put a point of view when I think the moment is right. This is one of those moments.
Mr Purdey
I believe I can claim that you have consistently, over many months, not accepted any aspect of this incident that raises one or more of the potently serious questions as to actual negligence by these two fine officers. Indeed, I seem to re-call that you refute so much and try to justify your views when you ignore the most important, the most significant and the most pointed of all matters, 'certified' by honurable gentlemen which cannot include the Air Marshalls, for they might just as well be you.
This is it, and..........I might just add that it is virtually unanswerable and not capable of being mis-understood. Why then Mr Purdey do you always seemingly IGNORE it. I quote it from Tandem Rotors post because he has made it so clear for anyone and everyone to understand as no other.
Please answer it Mr Purdey for it is a written regulation that no-one can alter, manipulate or simply change to suit.
PPP
Mr Purdey
I believe I can claim that you have consistently, over many months, not accepted any aspect of this incident that raises one or more of the potently serious questions as to actual negligence by these two fine officers. Indeed, I seem to re-call that you refute so much and try to justify your views when you ignore the most important, the most significant and the most pointed of all matters, 'certified' by honurable gentlemen which cannot include the Air Marshalls, for they might just as well be you.
This is it, and..........I might just add that it is virtually unanswerable and not capable of being mis-understood. Why then Mr Purdey do you always seemingly IGNORE it. I quote it from Tandem Rotors post because he has made it so clear for anyone and everyone to understand as no other.
Which is effectively what the PAC said, and why no extensive aviation knowledge is required to see that, a miscarriage of natural justice occured when the 2 Air Marshalls ignored the direction that the President of the BOI wrestled with.
That is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
A standard that I, and many others, find absolutely in keeping with the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
That is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
A standard that I, and many others, find absolutely in keeping with the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
PPP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame that everyone keeps having a pop at John Purdey for raising some legitimate points.
I tried to make the point some time ago that an RAF Board of Inquiry is not a court of law. It is a professional inquiry designed to determine the cause of an accident and thereby, prevent its repetition. To that end, normal court rules do not apply, largely to encourage everyone to speak honestly. The military is not unique in this respect. If there is any question mark against professional competence of lawyers, doctors, churchmen etc, they are dealt with through their professional bodies, not twelve good men and true.
Second, while it is true that "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent", that doesn't mean 'no doubt' in the minds of 50 million people. For better or worse, it means 'no doubt' in the mind of the convening authority. If you wish to challenge that, just as if you want to appeal against a doctor being struck off by the GMC, you must show why the basis of their judgement is unsound. Shouting 'it's unfair' or hurling personal abuse at the Secretary of State is unlikely to help anyone's case.
I tried to make the point some time ago that an RAF Board of Inquiry is not a court of law. It is a professional inquiry designed to determine the cause of an accident and thereby, prevent its repetition. To that end, normal court rules do not apply, largely to encourage everyone to speak honestly. The military is not unique in this respect. If there is any question mark against professional competence of lawyers, doctors, churchmen etc, they are dealt with through their professional bodies, not twelve good men and true.
Second, while it is true that "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent", that doesn't mean 'no doubt' in the minds of 50 million people. For better or worse, it means 'no doubt' in the mind of the convening authority. If you wish to challenge that, just as if you want to appeal against a doctor being struck off by the GMC, you must show why the basis of their judgement is unsound. Shouting 'it's unfair' or hurling personal abuse at the Secretary of State is unlikely to help anyone's case.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatiron
Please explain how, finding two deceased pilots guilty of 'gross negligence', prevents its repetition?
Is this an ENLIGHTENED approach to accident investigation, which "encourages everyone to speak honestly?"
Or is it the management tool for 'discouraging' further accidents, by apportioning 'blame' to which I referred in an earlier post?
We are of course aware that "normal court rules do not apply in this case", some would go as far as to say that natural justice had to be suspended, to enable a 'conviction' to be secured!
You suggest some equivalence to other processes:
"If there is any question mark against professional competence of lawyers, doctors, churchmen etc, they are dealt with through their professional bodies, not twelve good men and true."
No doubt you can tell us how many of these cases against "lawyers, doctors, churchmen" are heard, when those at the centre of the allegations are unable (not unwilling!) to defend themselves.
Finally, we are painfully aware that there is "no doubt whatsoever" in the minds of the 2 Air Marshalls. What you need to understand, and explain is this:
There IS apparently doubt in the mind of the AAIB, the president of the BOI, and every independent body who have reviewed this case.
I don't recall any of them "shouting" or "hurling abuse!"
Please explain how, finding two deceased pilots guilty of 'gross negligence', prevents its repetition?
Is this an ENLIGHTENED approach to accident investigation, which "encourages everyone to speak honestly?"
Or is it the management tool for 'discouraging' further accidents, by apportioning 'blame' to which I referred in an earlier post?
We are of course aware that "normal court rules do not apply in this case", some would go as far as to say that natural justice had to be suspended, to enable a 'conviction' to be secured!
You suggest some equivalence to other processes:
"If there is any question mark against professional competence of lawyers, doctors, churchmen etc, they are dealt with through their professional bodies, not twelve good men and true."
No doubt you can tell us how many of these cases against "lawyers, doctors, churchmen" are heard, when those at the centre of the allegations are unable (not unwilling!) to defend themselves.
Finally, we are painfully aware that there is "no doubt whatsoever" in the minds of the 2 Air Marshalls. What you need to understand, and explain is this:
There IS apparently doubt in the mind of the AAIB, the president of the BOI, and every independent body who have reviewed this case.
I don't recall any of them "shouting" or "hurling abuse!"
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatiron, the whole thrust of this campaign is that the verdict of the 2 AM's is unsustainable due to the fact that the burden of proof required was not satisfied. Some posters on this thread have not accpeted this, which is why a civilised debate is taking place.
I take offence at your characterisation of this campaign and would respectfully ask you to reconsider that aspect of your post. Many posters on this thread, Mr Dixon, Tandemrotor chocks et al have spent a considerable amount of time, effort and expense in attempting to clear the names of respected and much missed friends and colleagues. They have done so in a professional and measured way.
You are quite correct in that an RAF Board of Inquiry is not a Court of Law. Unfortunately you are incorrect in your assertion that normal court rules do not apply. Any judicial or quasi judicial body has to adhere to Natural Justice, the Rule of Law and the self imposed terms of reference for that body. If this is not adhered to or the body goes outside its remit, an application for Judicial Review can be initiated, where the legality of the decision making process is examined.
I accept the point that the burden has to be satisfied for the convening authority to make that decision. However, in reaching that decision the onus is on the convening authority to ensure that their decision is legally sustainable and justified. This point cannot be satisfied in this case. Government departments are issued with guidance notes on judicial or quasi judicial decision making processes in order to ensure that applications for Judicial Review are minimised.
The numerous bodies that have examined this case in detail, including the House of Lords, which outrank and supercede a Judicial Review, have unanimously decided that the verdict of the 2 AM's is unsustainable. There is no legitimate reason why the decision of the UK's highest ranking legal minds should be blatantly ignored.
I hope this information is helpful.
regards
I take offence at your characterisation of this campaign and would respectfully ask you to reconsider that aspect of your post. Many posters on this thread, Mr Dixon, Tandemrotor chocks et al have spent a considerable amount of time, effort and expense in attempting to clear the names of respected and much missed friends and colleagues. They have done so in a professional and measured way.
You are quite correct in that an RAF Board of Inquiry is not a Court of Law. Unfortunately you are incorrect in your assertion that normal court rules do not apply. Any judicial or quasi judicial body has to adhere to Natural Justice, the Rule of Law and the self imposed terms of reference for that body. If this is not adhered to or the body goes outside its remit, an application for Judicial Review can be initiated, where the legality of the decision making process is examined.
I accept the point that the burden has to be satisfied for the convening authority to make that decision. However, in reaching that decision the onus is on the convening authority to ensure that their decision is legally sustainable and justified. This point cannot be satisfied in this case. Government departments are issued with guidance notes on judicial or quasi judicial decision making processes in order to ensure that applications for Judicial Review are minimised.
The numerous bodies that have examined this case in detail, including the House of Lords, which outrank and supercede a Judicial Review, have unanimously decided that the verdict of the 2 AM's is unsustainable. There is no legitimate reason why the decision of the UK's highest ranking legal minds should be blatantly ignored.
I hope this information is helpful.
regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
PPRuNe Pop
You say....'please answer it Mr P' but I'm sorry to say I am confused by your post. What exactly is 'it.?
If you are referring to the whole question of doubt, then many folk are keen to know where, in the light of the known facts, the doubts lie. The crew had the choice of turning away, which would have been the action of reasonable men, but did not do so.
Regards.
John Purdey
You say....'please answer it Mr P' but I'm sorry to say I am confused by your post. What exactly is 'it.?
If you are referring to the whole question of doubt, then many folk are keen to know where, in the light of the known facts, the doubts lie. The crew had the choice of turning away, which would have been the action of reasonable men, but did not do so.
Regards.
John Purdey
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, J P, I guess something happened- or didn't happen- during those last 800 metres. You don't know, nobody knows....
So the RAF's test of negligence is not met.
It seems to me that the issue is not one of aeronautics, it's a matter of understanding the english language.
So the RAF's test of negligence is not met.
It seems to me that the issue is not one of aeronautics, it's a matter of understanding the english language.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Chippy63,
Of course, quite a lot of this is about language AND definitions.
But surely, what may have happened during the last 10 or 15 seconds of flight (and of course no-one has the slightest idea of what may have happened) ,would not have happened had the crew turned away, as, according to all the rules they should have done. And that is what this very repetative discussion has always been about.
With all good wishes, in what I hope is still a civilised discussion about professional airmanship.
JP
Of course, quite a lot of this is about language AND definitions.
But surely, what may have happened during the last 10 or 15 seconds of flight (and of course no-one has the slightest idea of what may have happened) ,would not have happened had the crew turned away, as, according to all the rules they should have done. And that is what this very repetative discussion has always been about.
With all good wishes, in what I hope is still a civilised discussion about professional airmanship.
JP
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: A big comfy armchair
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this part of the discussion has been about the difference between couldn't and didn't.
Your point is, as it has always been, that they didn't turn away therefore they are negligent. My view is that here is a possibility that they couldn't turn away.
That possibility, however remote you might think it, is the difference between utter certainty and some doubt.
Your point is, as it has always been, that they didn't turn away therefore they are negligent. My view is that here is a possibility that they couldn't turn away.
That possibility, however remote you might think it, is the difference between utter certainty and some doubt.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shocking
But surely, what may have happened during the last 10 or 15 seconds of flight (and of course no-one has the slightest idea of what may have happened) ,would not have happened had the crew turned away, as, according to all the rules they should have done. And that is what this very repetative discussion has always been about.
I may go so far as to say I know nothing, except I (like so many others here) fell that the decision reached by the 2 Air Marshalls is shocking, and should be overturned immediately.
However, the above quote happened to get my blood boiling. How one can stand up and say that "...would not have happenned had the crew turned away,".
Unless JP happened to be on that fateful sortie, I'd like to see him justify his post.
Cat5
EDIT: Sorry Cat5 but I still have to deal with breaches of current low tolerance in the use of swearing - covered or otherwise - in accordance of Danny's edict on the subject. So............edit duly excercised.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey.
I am somewhat surprised that you failed to see the point. Indeed, do I detect a deliberate act not to do so.
I thought I had made it clear but so as not to get into a dead end street. 'IT' is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
It is on that basis a straigtforward question I think.
What YOU think about the incident is irrelevant. What is important about the question is that the BOI were very troubled by it and the Law Lords, in their findings, decided that there was ample doubt. Therefore, and in the written terms of Royal Air Force regulations, it would be impossible to find the crew negligent. Producing slide rules and assumptions as to what could or could not have been done is also irrelevant. No-one knows so there is your doubt.
If there is doubt, no matter how small, the crew are NOT negligent.
I am somewhat surprised that you failed to see the point. Indeed, do I detect a deliberate act not to do so.
I thought I had made it clear but so as not to get into a dead end street. 'IT' is:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased aircrew be found negligent"
It is on that basis a straigtforward question I think.
What YOU think about the incident is irrelevant. What is important about the question is that the BOI were very troubled by it and the Law Lords, in their findings, decided that there was ample doubt. Therefore, and in the written terms of Royal Air Force regulations, it would be impossible to find the crew negligent. Producing slide rules and assumptions as to what could or could not have been done is also irrelevant. No-one knows so there is your doubt.
If there is doubt, no matter how small, the crew are NOT negligent.
Just a numbered other
I've refrained from putting in another tuppence-worth, as, like JP, I get a little fed up with regurgitating the same facts and opinions. (note how important it is to realise that the two are not the same).
I must agree with Cat5; that quote exercised me somewhat too.
JP, How can you assert such a view, and still agree with a verdict which had to stand the test of 'no doubt whatsoever'?
You obviously agree that the two Airships have not 'the slightest idea of what may have happened during the last 10 or 15 seconds of flight'. So how on earth can you uphold their finding?
Judges, Law lords, Magistrates and many of their ilk spend all day putting personal prejudice aside, to apply the rules of law. You must do the same.
Now answer Pop's question.
Tandemrotor - excellent post.
I must agree with Cat5; that quote exercised me somewhat too.
JP, How can you assert such a view, and still agree with a verdict which had to stand the test of 'no doubt whatsoever'?
You obviously agree that the two Airships have not 'the slightest idea of what may have happened during the last 10 or 15 seconds of flight'. So how on earth can you uphold their finding?
Judges, Law lords, Magistrates and many of their ilk spend all day putting personal prejudice aside, to apply the rules of law. You must do the same.
Now answer Pop's question.
Tandemrotor - excellent post.