Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Just a numbered other
Thanks H&H, that has crystalised the nagging thoughts nicely.. .. .Add to your excellent post that their lordships were examining the finding in light of the evidence that was available at the time, making any new simulation irrelevant.. .. .The only other plausible reason I can come up with is a chance for the MoD to say that the original simulation was flawed, that Wratten and Day, in good faith, placed too much reliance upon it, and accept their lordships' exoneration with no damaging loss of face to their airships. Day will forget his promise to resign and everything in the garden will be lovely! Except that he'll still be in charge of men and women whose boots contain more 'moral courage' than Days entire wardrobe of fine uniformery.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My MP wrote to me enclosing the reply he received from the Armed Forces Minister:. .. ."MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. .MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB. .Telephone 020 7218 6666 (Direct Dialling). .020 7218 9000 (Switchboard) . .. .D/Min(AF)/Al 1445/02 & 1 372/021Y. .. .Thank you for your letters of 7 March to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State enclosing one from your constituent about the findings of the recently published House of Lords Select Committee report on the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.. .. .This was indeed a most tragic accident, and as the original investigating Board of Inquiry (BOl) found, and all the various reviews since have confirmed, the circumstances of the crash were complex. The determination of Gross Negligence by the BOl Reviewing Officers was founded on airmanship and duty of care issues, allied to weather, serviceability and technical factors. The Air Marshals’ professional determination that the high standard of proof required to sustain a Gross Negligence finding, could be and had be met, remains central to this case.. .. .The issues arising from their Lordships’ report quite properly require the most careful and detailed consideration. We are, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House on 6 February 2002 (Official Report, column 856) studying the report and will give a full and proper response in due course. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment until then.. .. .The Rt Hon Adam Ingram JP MP"
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Camberley, Surrey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinook Accident
Gentlemen,
There has been a great deal of Politics on this board about this Chinook Accident on the West Coast of Scotland. But perhaps those unfortunate People who lost their lives and their families are entitled to some sort of reply, and YES a great deal of Compensation-- from whoever is responsible !!!
Who tasked this Aircraft-- ( even worse Helicopter) to fly so many security experts in the same Helicopter (not even fixed wing)??
It was clearly known by the operator MOD and the assigned crew that some deficiencies existed with on board software systems, related to engine performance and possibly Navigation.- and yet it was tasked--
The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight. Below off route Radar coverage, and possibly out of communication with even a military unit, for some if not most of the en-route phase.
Then why not choose a longer en-route phase via Airways and within Radar and communication cover for this type of flight, also at a LEVEL which ensured irrespective of weather or Terrain a safe profile.
What happened to the Emergency RT calls that all was not well, have we or anyone outside MOD seen chapter and verse on this accident. ?? Did it carry Black box Recorders ?? Will it happen again??
I live near to RAF Odiham and over a number of years have observed the Flying style of Civil Helicopters and their Military counterparts over the area en-route to H3 at Bagshot, Now tell me Military guys why you need to fly at significantly lower levels over Residential and local high ground areas than the minimum levels legally permitted for civil Helicopter flying. You are not at all times on operational sorties but frequently on Comms. flights Joining an enroute Heli Lane (H3). You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinnok accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence.
But what is almost certain is that the House of Lords are not Aviation Experts- but have nevertheless in their inimitable style deliberated. They do aviation no favours in this respect.
Let us all see the facts - let us be assured that lessons will be learned for the future-- certainly the Victims families as innocent Passengers are entitled to know much more of the circumstances surrounding this accident. - in my view they are entitled to proper compensation, proper accountability. The rush to overturn the MOD findings appears to have forgotten this aspect.
I submit my views , which are my opinion and which will inevitably be contested in many circles, but no more and no less than the deliberations recently exercised on this board or within the House of Lords recently.
There has been a great deal of Politics on this board about this Chinook Accident on the West Coast of Scotland. But perhaps those unfortunate People who lost their lives and their families are entitled to some sort of reply, and YES a great deal of Compensation-- from whoever is responsible !!!
Who tasked this Aircraft-- ( even worse Helicopter) to fly so many security experts in the same Helicopter (not even fixed wing)??
It was clearly known by the operator MOD and the assigned crew that some deficiencies existed with on board software systems, related to engine performance and possibly Navigation.- and yet it was tasked--
The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight. Below off route Radar coverage, and possibly out of communication with even a military unit, for some if not most of the en-route phase.
Then why not choose a longer en-route phase via Airways and within Radar and communication cover for this type of flight, also at a LEVEL which ensured irrespective of weather or Terrain a safe profile.
What happened to the Emergency RT calls that all was not well, have we or anyone outside MOD seen chapter and verse on this accident. ?? Did it carry Black box Recorders ?? Will it happen again??
I live near to RAF Odiham and over a number of years have observed the Flying style of Civil Helicopters and their Military counterparts over the area en-route to H3 at Bagshot, Now tell me Military guys why you need to fly at significantly lower levels over Residential and local high ground areas than the minimum levels legally permitted for civil Helicopter flying. You are not at all times on operational sorties but frequently on Comms. flights Joining an enroute Heli Lane (H3). You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinnok accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence.
But what is almost certain is that the House of Lords are not Aviation Experts- but have nevertheless in their inimitable style deliberated. They do aviation no favours in this respect.
Let us all see the facts - let us be assured that lessons will be learned for the future-- certainly the Victims families as innocent Passengers are entitled to know much more of the circumstances surrounding this accident. - in my view they are entitled to proper compensation, proper accountability. The rush to overturn the MOD findings appears to have forgotten this aspect.
I submit my views , which are my opinion and which will inevitably be contested in many circles, but no more and no less than the deliberations recently exercised on this board or within the House of Lords recently.
Last edited by mikeran; 1st Apr 2002 at 20:41.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikeran
I'm not sure of the exact point(s) you are making but you are right about politics.
Those pushing the politics approach want to connfuse the issue with the simple legal matter of gross negligence.
The Lords and others have argued that there was no evidence in law to prove negligence. End of story. Seems simple enough,especially when you read the report of the select committee and the recent debate in the commons.
I'm not sure of the exact point(s) you are making but you are right about politics.
Those pushing the politics approach want to connfuse the issue with the simple legal matter of gross negligence.
The Lords and others have argued that there was no evidence in law to prove negligence. End of story. Seems simple enough,especially when you read the report of the select committee and the recent debate in the commons.
Just a numbered other
mikeran
Always nice to see new interest in this matter. May I suggest you go to the archive section and read All that has been said about it before posting again. Most of your questions have been answered.
With respect to why the aircraft did not fly airways, you may be surprised to learn that military helicopter pilots do not hold the required procedural instrument ratings to do this. Furthermore, the icing clearance of the Chinook Mk2 prohibited flight in IMC below +4 degrees C.
The point made above is the crux of the matter. Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Always nice to see new interest in this matter. May I suggest you go to the archive section and read All that has been said about it before posting again. Most of your questions have been answered.
With respect to why the aircraft did not fly airways, you may be surprised to learn that military helicopter pilots do not hold the required procedural instrument ratings to do this. Furthermore, the icing clearance of the Chinook Mk2 prohibited flight in IMC below +4 degrees C.
The point made above is the crux of the matter. Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ArkRoyal, well said. The quote I have taken from your post is probably the best sentence I have seen on these many pages. It sums up the whole point of this campaign - one that so many have hitherto missed.
May I suggest that everyone use it at the bottom of all posts.
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Arrse
"Gross Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found".
Like Wratten and Day and a few politicians your assumption that the pilots must have flown into the hill is simply that, an assumption, that has not nor will be proved.
In the same way there are assumptions made that the aircraft developed a defect that has not been traced. If you read the Commons debate you will see that a US Army Chinook barrel rolled in 1997 . When stripped down fault a few days later no fault was found. We also were reminded of the FADEC problems as well as the problem of the aircraft suffering in flight jams at or shortly after a change of direction.
I also recall Robert Key in the same debate tell us about the refusal of the Boscombe Downs pilots to fly that type of Chinook.
All of this suggest there might have been mechanical failure. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove that point.
Now if you had put a case for mechanical failure at least the history suggests that it might have been the cause. However, we don't know because nobody was able to find out the cause. We also know the pilots were worried about the aircraft . These are facts but still do not prove cause.
On the other hand there is no, repeat no evidence, that the crew were intent on flying into the hill or negligent in any way. As the Lords Select Committee states the finding of gross negligence, not by the original inquiry but by the two air marshals was based on hypotheses and assumptions but not on fact.
"Gross Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found".
Like Wratten and Day and a few politicians your assumption that the pilots must have flown into the hill is simply that, an assumption, that has not nor will be proved.
In the same way there are assumptions made that the aircraft developed a defect that has not been traced. If you read the Commons debate you will see that a US Army Chinook barrel rolled in 1997 . When stripped down fault a few days later no fault was found. We also were reminded of the FADEC problems as well as the problem of the aircraft suffering in flight jams at or shortly after a change of direction.
I also recall Robert Key in the same debate tell us about the refusal of the Boscombe Downs pilots to fly that type of Chinook.
All of this suggest there might have been mechanical failure. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove that point.
Now if you had put a case for mechanical failure at least the history suggests that it might have been the cause. However, we don't know because nobody was able to find out the cause. We also know the pilots were worried about the aircraft . These are facts but still do not prove cause.
On the other hand there is no, repeat no evidence, that the crew were intent on flying into the hill or negligent in any way. As the Lords Select Committee states the finding of gross negligence, not by the original inquiry but by the two air marshals was based on hypotheses and assumptions but not on fact.
Last edited by slj; 2nd Apr 2002 at 18:48.
Just a numbered other
arsse,
If you really have studied all that's been placed on this and the previous forum, you will know that none of us has said that negligence was definitely not the cause of this tragedy.
As soon as you use words such as 'probably' and 'likely' you simply reinforce the case for overturning this verdict.
The criterea of 'no doubt whatsoever' was not thought up by we campaigners to give the MOD a hard time. It was quite rightly enshrined in the RAF's own rules to protect dead men from the slings and arrows that the living could (for whatever reason or agenda) aim their way whilst they had no ability to defend themselves. That is why the burden of proof is, and has to be, so high.
PprunePop, thankyou. But I must admit to paraphrasing the summing up of the report of the Public Accounts Commitee last year.
Now, pop, can I have the fish back in the message icons?
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
If you really have studied all that's been placed on this and the previous forum, you will know that none of us has said that negligence was definitely not the cause of this tragedy.
As soon as you use words such as 'probably' and 'likely' you simply reinforce the case for overturning this verdict.
The criterea of 'no doubt whatsoever' was not thought up by we campaigners to give the MOD a hard time. It was quite rightly enshrined in the RAF's own rules to protect dead men from the slings and arrows that the living could (for whatever reason or agenda) aim their way whilst they had no ability to defend themselves. That is why the burden of proof is, and has to be, so high.
PprunePop, thankyou. But I must admit to paraphrasing the summing up of the report of the Public Accounts Commitee last year.
Now, pop, can I have the fish back in the message icons?
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Arrse
As Ark Royal and countless others have stated the matter is all about proof of cause.
There is no proof that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent. The balance of evidence suggests that if one had to ascribe blame that mechanical failure is the more likely culprit than pilot error. Read the recent reports again and you will see what I mean.
A finding of pilot error in this case does not require great courage. Rather it suggests the opposite. Its attraction is that it diverts attention from the real issues and if one were fearing heavy claims claims for negligence it puts a handy intervening cause into the equation.
I think the pursing of hypotheses, asumptions and specualtions about what the the two pilots might have done or not have done is a slight to their memory and to the families.
There is no evidence to support such comments.
As Ark Royal and countless others have stated the matter is all about proof of cause.
There is no proof that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent. The balance of evidence suggests that if one had to ascribe blame that mechanical failure is the more likely culprit than pilot error. Read the recent reports again and you will see what I mean.
A finding of pilot error in this case does not require great courage. Rather it suggests the opposite. Its attraction is that it diverts attention from the real issues and if one were fearing heavy claims claims for negligence it puts a handy intervening cause into the equation.
I think the pursing of hypotheses, asumptions and specualtions about what the the two pilots might have done or not have done is a slight to their memory and to the families.
There is no evidence to support such comments.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
e-mail sent on 19 Feb:
"Dear Mr Hoon,
Can you tell me when the MOD are going to re-open the BOI to reverse the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls, in view of the Lords Select Committee findings that there is no case to answer for the finding of gross negligence against the 2 pilots?
Yours sincerely,"
Reply received 03 Apr:
"Thank you for your e-mail of 19 February to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As is usual in such cicumstances your message has been passed to this branch for attention as we have responsibility for this matter.
No doubt your e-mail was prompted by the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee Report about the accident. We are currently studying and fully assessing the Report and will provide a response to Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee in due course. It would be inappropriate to make substantive comment about the Report before then.
Yours sincerely
Nan Bellchambers"
Oh how slowly does grind the wheels of Whitehall...
"Dear Mr Hoon,
Can you tell me when the MOD are going to re-open the BOI to reverse the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls, in view of the Lords Select Committee findings that there is no case to answer for the finding of gross negligence against the 2 pilots?
Yours sincerely,"
Reply received 03 Apr:
"Thank you for your e-mail of 19 February to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As is usual in such cicumstances your message has been passed to this branch for attention as we have responsibility for this matter.
No doubt your e-mail was prompted by the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee Report about the accident. We are currently studying and fully assessing the Report and will provide a response to Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee in due course. It would be inappropriate to make substantive comment about the Report before then.
Yours sincerely
Nan Bellchambers"
Oh how slowly does grind the wheels of Whitehall...
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
Hi all,
just thought I'd point out (as if I needed to!) that two months has now passed since their Lordships Report was published. The MoD has repeatedly stated that it is carefully reviewing the Report before replying to Lord Jauncey. Taking into account weekends and Public Holidays, I would estimate that the Report is being read at a pace of one page a day! How long will it take them to read the report from Boeing following the proposed new simulation I wonder?
Only four months left MoD. May I respectfully suggest you read a little quicker.
As for the new posters on this thread - welcome one and all. Just to pick up one one or two of the re-visited issues:
"The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight." - Assumption
"You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinook accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence." - I agree. Not an easy task. The conclusion was based on speculation, not fact though.
"Balance and probability" - Without wishing to be rude, I'm not interested in either of those words. I am dealing with the words Gross and Negligence. Both require an absolute in order for them to be used. The requirement was not met and the rule relating to their use was abused.
That is what the past seven years has been about.
Great quote too Ark! I think I'll stick to my quote though, or I'll have John sending me e-mails
Thanks, as always, to everyone for their continued support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
just thought I'd point out (as if I needed to!) that two months has now passed since their Lordships Report was published. The MoD has repeatedly stated that it is carefully reviewing the Report before replying to Lord Jauncey. Taking into account weekends and Public Holidays, I would estimate that the Report is being read at a pace of one page a day! How long will it take them to read the report from Boeing following the proposed new simulation I wonder?
Only four months left MoD. May I respectfully suggest you read a little quicker.
As for the new posters on this thread - welcome one and all. Just to pick up one one or two of the re-visited issues:
"The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight." - Assumption
"You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinook accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence." - I agree. Not an easy task. The conclusion was based on speculation, not fact though.
"Balance and probability" - Without wishing to be rude, I'm not interested in either of those words. I am dealing with the words Gross and Negligence. Both require an absolute in order for them to be used. The requirement was not met and the rule relating to their use was abused.
That is what the past seven years has been about.
Great quote too Ark! I think I'll stick to my quote though, or I'll have John sending me e-mails
Thanks, as always, to everyone for their continued support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
I've been re-reading the David Davis debate and have just noticed the following quote from Minister Hoon.
"I am prepared to make evidence available for independent analysis."
I thought that was what their Lordships had just done.
EDS Scion (an independent company) looked at FADEC and reported hundreds of errors in 20% of the software. What has happened aoout their report? Very little. Why should we believe the Government this time?
It is a clear case of there being no evidence to support the verdict. Surely Mr Blair and Mr Hoon, both with a legal background, can see this. Why then are they so scared of the MoD?? Who is in charge - MoD or Ministers?
Perhaps we should all drop Mr Hoon a line to ask him to apply his legal training and make a decision soon. He could also tell us who is in charge.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
"I am prepared to make evidence available for independent analysis."
I thought that was what their Lordships had just done.
EDS Scion (an independent company) looked at FADEC and reported hundreds of errors in 20% of the software. What has happened aoout their report? Very little. Why should we believe the Government this time?
It is a clear case of there being no evidence to support the verdict. Surely Mr Blair and Mr Hoon, both with a legal background, can see this. Why then are they so scared of the MoD?? Who is in charge - MoD or Ministers?
Perhaps we should all drop Mr Hoon a line to ask him to apply his legal training and make a decision soon. He could also tell us who is in charge.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In light of the above (!) this looks hopeful...
Chinook Crash
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has recently requested in relation to his Department's review of the handling of the investigation into the crash of the ZD 576 Chinook helicopter in June 1994; and if he will make a statement.
The Rt. Hon. Adam Ingram: The House of Lords Select Committee expressed the opinion that the applicable standard of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever was not met by the Board of Inquiry finding. In the light of these comments, I have asked for further opinion in order to satisfy myself as to whether or not the legal approach adopted at the time was fully justified.
Chinook Crash
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has recently requested in relation to his Department's review of the handling of the investigation into the crash of the ZD 576 Chinook helicopter in June 1994; and if he will make a statement.
The Rt. Hon. Adam Ingram: The House of Lords Select Committee expressed the opinion that the applicable standard of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever was not met by the Board of Inquiry finding. In the light of these comments, I have asked for further opinion in order to satisfy myself as to whether or not the legal approach adopted at the time was fully justified.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to have re-hash old ground guys, but there are still aspect of this case that confuse me. I have little doubt that the AM's verdict was harsh and not the one most people would agree with, but there are still aspects of the evidence and it's reading, that leave me a little uneasy, so help me out here.
If all circumstances were the same:
A: Had there been an FDR, (NO CVR) showing the aircraft to be in perfect working order prior to impact; would this have been evidence enough, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time, to find the pilots grossly negligent?
B: In the absence of an FDR or CVR, is it unjust and/or unsustainable, given similar circumstances, to find any pilot negligent, or grossly negligent, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time?
C: A ruling of Gross Negligence could only apply to the PROVEN conduct of the pilots, in the circumstances immediately prior to the accident. Not to any aspect of flight planning and/or airmanship decisions en-route?
If all circumstances were the same:
A: Had there been an FDR, (NO CVR) showing the aircraft to be in perfect working order prior to impact; would this have been evidence enough, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time, to find the pilots grossly negligent?
B: In the absence of an FDR or CVR, is it unjust and/or unsustainable, given similar circumstances, to find any pilot negligent, or grossly negligent, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time?
C: A ruling of Gross Negligence could only apply to the PROVEN conduct of the pilots, in the circumstances immediately prior to the accident. Not to any aspect of flight planning and/or airmanship decisions en-route?
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
Hi L&S,
don't worry. I've had to have several things explained to me several times!!
I'll try to answer your questionas as best as I can, however the answers are my own opinion and not that of the MoK Group or the families. Hope that's OK.
a. A FDR would certainly have strengthened the argument of the Air Marshals and the MoD. It may have resulted in a different verdict from the President of the BoI who, if you recall, did not find the pilots negligent. With the greatest of respect, this is purely a hypothetical question.
b. Yes and/or yes!! This is the point of the whole campaign.
c. Again, yes. However, the Air Marshals have moved the point at which they say negligence occurred every time doubt was cast upon their argument. I recall one mention of negligence occurring at the point of departure as that meant the crew would be over crew duty time. Another was at the point of waypoint change (wherever that was), and further one was at a point too close to the Mull for the pilots to take avoiding action. The last one presented as fact a knowledge of where the Chinook was and at what height and speed it was (despite the fact that the final figures are speculated).
I hope this has helped clear some concerns up for you. If not please let me know. As I said, this is my own opinion. If there is anything I have got wrong, someone please let me know and correct where necessary.
Two and a half months now gone, and still nothing from the MoD or Minister Hoon. Are they really that slow at reading? I read the whole thing on the train home!
Anyone know when the new simulation has/will take place?
Thanks again for everyone keeping this in the public domain.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
don't worry. I've had to have several things explained to me several times!!
I'll try to answer your questionas as best as I can, however the answers are my own opinion and not that of the MoK Group or the families. Hope that's OK.
a. A FDR would certainly have strengthened the argument of the Air Marshals and the MoD. It may have resulted in a different verdict from the President of the BoI who, if you recall, did not find the pilots negligent. With the greatest of respect, this is purely a hypothetical question.
b. Yes and/or yes!! This is the point of the whole campaign.
c. Again, yes. However, the Air Marshals have moved the point at which they say negligence occurred every time doubt was cast upon their argument. I recall one mention of negligence occurring at the point of departure as that meant the crew would be over crew duty time. Another was at the point of waypoint change (wherever that was), and further one was at a point too close to the Mull for the pilots to take avoiding action. The last one presented as fact a knowledge of where the Chinook was and at what height and speed it was (despite the fact that the final figures are speculated).
I hope this has helped clear some concerns up for you. If not please let me know. As I said, this is my own opinion. If there is anything I have got wrong, someone please let me know and correct where necessary.
Two and a half months now gone, and still nothing from the MoD or Minister Hoon. Are they really that slow at reading? I read the whole thing on the train home!
Anyone know when the new simulation has/will take place?
Thanks again for everyone keeping this in the public domain.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook