Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toatally agreed with polyglory and fjjp. We are not here to debate the cause of this tragic accident. The cause of the crash has been established as, I quote "the crew while operating in poor weather and close to high ground flew the aircraft into the ground". That was the cause of the accident and that is not up for dispute or debate.
However, what is debatable is that there is no evidence to support a charge of Gross Negligence. That is what this thread is about.
However, what is debatable is that there is no evidence to support a charge of Gross Negligence. That is what this thread is about.
Last edited by Mikehegland; 7th Dec 2004 at 10:54.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehegland
This thread has been running for very nearly 3 years now. You first appeared on Pprune, 5 days ago. Even though your contributions have been prolific, in such a VERY short time, don't you think it a little arrogant to lecture those that have been around a little longer than you, what this thread may be about?
And if the 'cause of the accident' is not "up for dispute or debate", why do you suppose that, every INDEPENDENT review of the available evidence, starting with the Fatal Accident Inquiry, has been unable to determine the 'cause of the accident'?
(Perhaps I SHOULD have said: Starting with the president of the BOI!!)
Are you aware of some fact that has not previously emerged?
Finally, I note that you have ALREADY changed your profile!! To erase your claim to work for American Airlines, flying B747-400s.
Perhaps AA don't actually fly B747-400s?
How strange.
This thread has been running for very nearly 3 years now. You first appeared on Pprune, 5 days ago. Even though your contributions have been prolific, in such a VERY short time, don't you think it a little arrogant to lecture those that have been around a little longer than you, what this thread may be about?
And if the 'cause of the accident' is not "up for dispute or debate", why do you suppose that, every INDEPENDENT review of the available evidence, starting with the Fatal Accident Inquiry, has been unable to determine the 'cause of the accident'?
(Perhaps I SHOULD have said: Starting with the president of the BOI!!)
Are you aware of some fact that has not previously emerged?
Finally, I note that you have ALREADY changed your profile!! To erase your claim to work for American Airlines, flying B747-400s.
Perhaps AA don't actually fly B747-400s?
How strange.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 7th Dec 2004 at 18:21.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Opps
Oh, Im sorry. Please accept my apologies. I didnt realise that having only been on this site for 5 days meant that I couldn't express an opinion. I'll refrain from making any further comment until I've been on here longer. Sorry, didn't realise there was a protocol.
Lamentably, all the evidence points towards them having ignored one of the basic tenants of airmanship, which is never to attempt to fly visually below safety altitude unless the weather conditions are unambiguously suitable for operating under Visual Flight Rules."
American Airlines....or AA ?????????????
Lamentably, all the evidence points towards them having ignored one of the basic tenants of airmanship, which is never to attempt to fly visually below safety altitude unless the weather conditions are unambiguously suitable for operating under Visual Flight Rules."
American Airlines....or AA ?????????????
Last edited by Mikehegland; 8th Dec 2004 at 16:21.
Mikeh - 5 days is more than long enough to allow you to express an "opinion" but maybe what is raising the hackles here is your earlier assertion that "The cause of the crash has been established" and that "it is not up for dispute or debate".
That quote of yours is sandwiched between 2 separate posts by you where you quote the same thing namely, "all the evidence points towards them having ignored one of the basic tenants of airmanship"
Just because evidence may point towards something does not mean that was the cause, particularly in this case with no real data to go on. I willingly accept it may have been one of the causal factors, hey you may be right and your OPINION that it may even be THE cause could even be correct. But I take my lead from the many independant reports on this which find that they cannot establish exactly what happened, nevermind to the degree of certainty required by the rules at the time.
Whilst I agree with you that we are here to get the Gross Negligence finding removed I feel the biggest barrier in achieving this is a continued insistance that limited facts, suppositions and assumptions keep being presented as cast-iron proof of what happened. That is absolutely unsupportable in my opinion (see there is that word again).
Unfortunately, that is the mind-set of the decision-makers (I use that term loosely) and if we do not continually challenge that thought process we will never make the breakthrough that the campaign needs and the families (of all involved) so desperately deserve.
That quote of yours is sandwiched between 2 separate posts by you where you quote the same thing namely, "all the evidence points towards them having ignored one of the basic tenants of airmanship"
Just because evidence may point towards something does not mean that was the cause, particularly in this case with no real data to go on. I willingly accept it may have been one of the causal factors, hey you may be right and your OPINION that it may even be THE cause could even be correct. But I take my lead from the many independant reports on this which find that they cannot establish exactly what happened, nevermind to the degree of certainty required by the rules at the time.
Whilst I agree with you that we are here to get the Gross Negligence finding removed I feel the biggest barrier in achieving this is a continued insistance that limited facts, suppositions and assumptions keep being presented as cast-iron proof of what happened. That is absolutely unsupportable in my opinion (see there is that word again).
Unfortunately, that is the mind-set of the decision-makers (I use that term loosely) and if we do not continually challenge that thought process we will never make the breakthrough that the campaign needs and the families (of all involved) so desperately deserve.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you....some sense at last. However, that quote was not mine. If you want to read a lot more quotes please go here
www.chinook-justice.org
Like this one for instance
"However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre"
Now that clearly states that the actions of the crew was the most probable cause. If the crew hadn't behaved/reacted/flew like that then they would "probably" have not conducted a C.F.I.T. However, I STRONGLY believe that even though the crew "probably" flew the aircraft into the ground, it was not GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
As for the unambiguously suitable. The VFR rules are seriously ambiguous....i.e.
1. Maintain your own Collision avoidance - They didn't do that.
2. Remain VMC.
Now, providing they were below 3000' and below 140 Kts the VMC are remain "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface".
"Clear of cloud" What does that mean? If the clould base is 1000' Then is it safe, clever, legal to fly at 950' According to the rules it is...you would be VFR BUT its a pretty silly place to fly and it is somewhere were most intelligent aviators would steer clear off BUT is isn't illegal to fly at 950' So, how much Clear of cloud should you be?
"In sight of the surface" In sight of the surface of what? The ground? That big mountain? The Aircraft carrier going past your left hand side? And how much of the surface do you have to be "in sight of" Thats why he said "unambiguously suitable"
www.chinook-justice.org
Like this one for instance
"However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre"
Now that clearly states that the actions of the crew was the most probable cause. If the crew hadn't behaved/reacted/flew like that then they would "probably" have not conducted a C.F.I.T. However, I STRONGLY believe that even though the crew "probably" flew the aircraft into the ground, it was not GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
As for the unambiguously suitable. The VFR rules are seriously ambiguous....i.e.
1. Maintain your own Collision avoidance - They didn't do that.
2. Remain VMC.
Now, providing they were below 3000' and below 140 Kts the VMC are remain "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface".
"Clear of cloud" What does that mean? If the clould base is 1000' Then is it safe, clever, legal to fly at 950' According to the rules it is...you would be VFR BUT its a pretty silly place to fly and it is somewhere were most intelligent aviators would steer clear off BUT is isn't illegal to fly at 950' So, how much Clear of cloud should you be?
"In sight of the surface" In sight of the surface of what? The ground? That big mountain? The Aircraft carrier going past your left hand side? And how much of the surface do you have to be "in sight of" Thats why he said "unambiguously suitable"
Last edited by Mikehegland; 8th Dec 2004 at 19:30.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did ASO s say about weather limits while flying in the UK low flying system outside of an operational or exercise area?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst we ponder the wheres and whatfors wrt VMC. Please spare a thought for fellow aviators in peril and give thanks and hope to our search and rescue forces.
BBC NEWs
Lord, guard and guide the men who fly
Through the great spaces in the sky.
Be with them always in the air,
In darkening storms or sunlight fair;
Oh, hear us when we lift our prayer,
For those in peril in the air!
BBC NEWs
Lord, guard and guide the men who fly
Through the great spaces in the sky.
Be with them always in the air,
In darkening storms or sunlight fair;
Oh, hear us when we lift our prayer,
For those in peril in the air!
Last edited by Mikehegland; 9th Dec 2004 at 06:52.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehegland:
Oh dear I really was not going to contribute again but I cannot believe the arrogance of one of your posts.
Quote:
Remember - we are not trying to find the casue of this accident, we already know that. We are not trying to remove the blame of this accident from John or Rick. Rick was flying and John was the Captain therefore they are to blame. We are trying to remove the unwarranted word NEGLIGENCE. Please lets stick to the purpose of this thread.
How do we know the cause of the accident? It is people like you that have caused this debacle to continue for so many years.
WE DO NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT. We know certain facts and much conjecture you cannot say that you know the cause of the accident and neither can Wratten Day or the MOD.
"Happiness is grovelling clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" and
Oh dear I really was not going to contribute again but I cannot believe the arrogance of one of your posts.
Quote:
Remember - we are not trying to find the casue of this accident, we already know that. We are not trying to remove the blame of this accident from John or Rick. Rick was flying and John was the Captain therefore they are to blame. We are trying to remove the unwarranted word NEGLIGENCE. Please lets stick to the purpose of this thread.
How do we know the cause of the accident? It is people like you that have caused this debacle to continue for so many years.
WE DO NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT. We know certain facts and much conjecture you cannot say that you know the cause of the accident and neither can Wratten Day or the MOD.
"Happiness is grovelling clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" and
Just a numbered other
Agree with you totally for once, Mike.
twinact, I did say a while back, that to the best of my knowledge and memory that the limits for NI based aircraft (wherever they were) was COCISS and 1k vis.
They were flying quite legally under JSP318, modified by local crab rules.
No conspiracy of silence, old chap, just 10 long years of memory degradation.
Mike, it's probably your rather bombastic tone which is ruffling feathers here. Perhaps you'd like to analyse your quote yourself:
Where in this does any basis for the finding of gross negligence arise, let alone
twinact, I did say a while back, that to the best of my knowledge and memory that the limits for NI based aircraft (wherever they were) was COCISS and 1k vis.
They were flying quite legally under JSP318, modified by local crab rules.
No conspiracy of silence, old chap, just 10 long years of memory degradation.
Mike, it's probably your rather bombastic tone which is ruffling feathers here. Perhaps you'd like to analyse your quote yourself:
"However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre"
The cause of the crash has been established
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you for that....but please please...these are not my quotes..
Perhaps you'd like to analyse your quote yourself:
That was a quote from the BOI, not mine.
And despite the fact that I think they were to blame I concur with you....where does it say they were negligent. They did not display any negligence at all. They made a fatal mistake and paid the ultimate price for it BUT they did not display gross negligence.
Tuck - Please please read the reports. They will lead you towards the cause and once again I quote from the BOI -
.
Those are not my words...they are from the BOI.
So, now we have got that out of the way can we please move on from this. We are not trying to discover the cause (we know that - the BOI told us)
This thread is designed as a campaign in conjunction with www.chinook-justice.org in order to remove the unjust and unwarranted "GROSS NEGLIGENCE" charge from Rick and Jon
Perhaps you'd like to analyse your quote yourself:
That was a quote from the BOI, not mine.
And despite the fact that I think they were to blame I concur with you....where does it say they were negligent. They did not display any negligence at all. They made a fatal mistake and paid the ultimate price for it BUT they did not display gross negligence.
Tuck - Please please read the reports. They will lead you towards the cause and once again I quote from the BOI -
.
"However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre"
Those are not my words...they are from the BOI.
So, now we have got that out of the way can we please move on from this. We are not trying to discover the cause (we know that - the BOI told us)
This thread is designed as a campaign in conjunction with www.chinook-justice.org in order to remove the unjust and unwarranted "GROSS NEGLIGENCE" charge from Rick and Jon
Just a numbered other
So, now we have got that out of the way can we please move on from this. We are not trying to discover the cause (we know that - the BOI told us)
Where in (and I know it's not your quote, but a quote you quoted)
"However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre"
Guest
Posts: n/a
the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre
in that bit.... they selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the mull.
and now you are going to labour on the word probable for the next fortnight. So, to avoid that........ here it is for you.
PROBABLE - Most likely cause (and that wasn't my definition but Mr Collins who has been formulating dictionaries since 1874).
Right, now that we have established that Iam going to cease any further post's on this subject and continue to write letter after letter to MP's, MEPs, COS etc etc in a feeble attempt to remove the word negligent from this case.
Last edited by Mikehegland; 10th Dec 2004 at 08:04.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal,
I know you were able to recite the rules pertinent to operations in the Province, but you know you can't say they applied 'wherever' they were.
However, they were operating under 'peacetime' rules on the mainland and I ask again -
I know you were able to recite the rules pertinent to operations in the Province, but you know you can't say they applied 'wherever' they were.
However, they were operating under 'peacetime' rules on the mainland and I ask again -
What did ASO s say about weather limits while flying in the UK low flying system outside of an operational or exercise area?
Just a numbered other
I know you were able to recite the rules pertinent to operations in the Province
RTFQ
These rules were in fact more stringent than JSP318
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehegland - the quote from the BoI is quite correct, as the Board was not responsible for the negligence charge. This position was supported by the reviewing officers, and negligence was only introduced at the very top of the food chain. Not only did the BoI not find negligence, it also stated
You have repeatedly said
You have obviously visited the campaign website where the following petition is available to inspect and sign online
Assuming you agree with the statement you would be most welcome to add your name to the 661 others on the list.
"an unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced on the Chinook HC2, which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence, remained a possibility, and could not be discounted"
they did not display gross negligence
We, the undersigned, believe that there is no evidence to support a verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lt Rick Cook and Flt Lt Jon Tapper
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal,
Mate, RTFQ, no need to get abusive ? I don't believe you did pose any question for me to read. However, did you read mine?
You seem to be aware of the primacy of orders from your quote of JSP 318 and local orders being more stringent. So the ASOs were higher orders than local orders and they laid down the weather limits for operations on the UK mainland; once you left the Province you had to follow them.
As an expert on the crash I'm sure you must remmber them and therefore be able to help others who want to know what the real weather limits were, not those applicable in the Province.
Mate, RTFQ, no need to get abusive ? I don't believe you did pose any question for me to read. However, did you read mine?
You seem to be aware of the primacy of orders from your quote of JSP 318 and local orders being more stringent. So the ASOs were higher orders than local orders and they laid down the weather limits for operations on the UK mainland; once you left the Province you had to follow them.
What did ASO s say about weather limits while flying in the UK low flying system outside of an operational or exercise area?
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
So, we're all agreed then... the verdict of negligence shouldn't stand.
Good. On with the Campaign.
Mikehegland, many thanks for your signature on the petition (and to everyone else too!).
I have recieved a further detailed mailing from Air Commodore Blakeley and have been asked to post his words, in full, on the thread. They are reproduced below:
I have watched with some disappointment the continuing arguments about the cause of the accident to ZD 576 on PPRuNe. My disappointment is not with the often interesting theories being advanced (although some of the personal slanging matches and "repeats" are disappointing), but with the fact that many of your contributors are arguing so vociferously about something that will never be known. Thus even though many point out the injustice of the verdict, they are not contributing directly to correcting that very real injustice that the two pilots have suffered. I have my own theories on the serviceability and airworthiness of the aircraft which I have fully documented on PPRuNe in terms of major fact based criticisms of the BoI, but even with these supporting facts I have to admit that like everyone else I am only offering a theory - I do not know what happened, the Air Marshals do not know what happened, and even Steuart Campbell despite the support he receives from the Air Marshals' spokesman John Purdey, does not know what happened (although if Campbell was right it could not be gross negligence anyway).
The points I would wish to make are as follows:
As PPuNer's will be aware ACM Wratten was the Command Authority over AOC 38 Group (AVM Johns at the date of the accident) – the officer formally responsible for convening the BoI and setting its terms of reference (albeit with such a high profile accident it is inconceivable that the AOC in C HQSTC and even higher authorities were not involved from the start). These terms of reference led to a BoI which by its own admission was heavily biased towards an aircrew error accident (and MOD has been given the results of a very comprehensive review of the Board of Inquiry (BoI) detailing the many shortfalls on the engineering side - to which they have never responded). Wratten was then the Senior Reviewing Officer as part of the BoI process and who as both judge and jury confirmed (and with his directive, possibly instigated) the RAF verdict of Gross Negligence – equivalent of course in a civilian court to a charge of manslaughter. What some PPRuNer's may not be aware of is that in the period between the BoI reporting their findings (30 January 1995) and the final comments of Wratten as Senior Reviewing Officer (3 April 1995) Wratten issued a directive which makes his position very clear – this is given in full in Meadowbanks’ post on page 85. The detailed timetable given below makes interesting reading and perhaps explains more than we had previously realised how this gross injustice might have been perpetrated.
30 Jan 1995 - BoI formally completed – no suggestion of negligence.
16 Feb 1995 - Directive from ACM Wratten
2 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Wedge (OC Aldergrove) – no suggestion of negligence
3 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Crawford (OC Odiham) – no suggestion of negligence.
20 Mar 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from AVM Day - negligence appears for the first time and is judged as being to a gross degree.
3 Apr 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from ACM Wratten - negligence endorsed, but now defined as Gross Negligence.
Although neither of the Station Commanders in the Review Process picked up the “actions” that they might have felt that the Wratten letter required (possibly because it had not yet reached them) the AOC 38 Gp AVM Day (as he then was) would, clearly, have had sight of it when he framed his comments, and one can imagine that with the pressures from above and knowledge of the Pandora's Box that could open if anyone started asking questions about the Mk2's introduction to service, it is reasonable to speculate that he might have felt that expanding the BoI's findings to a verdict of negligence could be a more career enhancing move than that of agreeing with either the BoI or the two Station Commanders
When one reviews the Wratten letter directive against what happened with ZD 576 there are some immediate questions that require an accurate and full response from MOD, and I would hope that PPRuNer's could lobby for this. These are:
Paragraph 2 states: “It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever, following Board of Inquiry or Unit Inquiry investigations, clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence.” Given that the BoI could not find such clear evidence and neither have any of the independent inquiries since then found such evidence what additional “evidence” as opposed to personal opinions did the Air Marshals have on which to base their verdict? On what basis did they decide that their “evidence” passed the “no doubt whatsoever requirements of AP 3207”? This is particularly relevant given that ACM Wratten’s BoI review includes the statement: “Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact.” How does this statement meet the requirements of either AP 3207 or Wratten's own letter? Wratten goes on to say that “there is no evidence whatever of any combination of possible minor problems or of any major difficulty which would have so taxed the crew that they had no option other than to keep fling towards high ground…..”. Of course there is no such evidence – there was no CVR or ADR fitted! The starting point for the BoI was that this was an aircrew error accident (but even then they did not find the aircrew negligent) and as a result there is plenty of evidence in the BoI which is either ignored or is not followed up of serious airworthiness and engineering problems with the aircraft – these have all been pointed out to MOD and pointedly ignored!
Paragraph 4 includes a clear requirement for any recommendation for disposal to be endorsed by the Director of Legal Services (RAF). Who did this in this case – Day or Wratten? When was this advice sought and what was the exact question asked? What was the DLS response and when was it given? Knowing what DLS said is particularly important as we now have first hand evidence that another "cog in the wheel" the RAF’s own professional flight safety organisation the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety advised the then CAS that there was insufficient evidence to justify a “Gross Negligence” verdict.
Paragraph 5 states “This will of course in no way undermine the certainty for those affected of a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process.” How was this “requirement” met in the period when the Reviewing Officers were making their decision, or, as many suspect, were Day and Wratten acting as judge and jury? Where were the safeguards? What was the legal process? We do not believe that any of this occurred. Certainly whatever this process was has not stood up to the independent reviews that have since taken place of it. It would be interesting to know what advice Wratten sought regarding the meaning of "Gross Negligence", but given that Air Force Law has to "mirror" the laws of England and Wales it is worth looking at what would happen in a civilian court. Gross negligence is a concept from criminal law. It is also used by various disciplinary tribunals. "Manslaughter by gross negligence" is a recognised offence. Where such a charge is brought the prosecution first has to prove negligence (ie that there was a duty of care between the defendant and the deceased and that it was breached) and secondly that the defendant's conduct was "so grossly negligent or reckless so as be properly branded criminal" (R v Devine[1999]). In each case this is a question for the jury on which they bring their common sense to bear. There is no general definition of what is and what is not capable of constituting gross negligence used in such cases. It will not escape PPRuNer's attention that in this case there was no defence and no jury, albeit it could be argued that all of the independent inquiries since then could be seen as representing a jury, and they have shown clearly that they would not have found "Gross Negligence"
In reality are we actually talking about the opinions of senior officers in the Command Chain having to be upheld regardless of any injustice caused? Certainly some of Wratten’s pubic comments about upholding the integrity of the Command Chain would indicate that this was his attitude? The Wratten letter indicates a macho commander trying to implement a very tough flight safety policy which does not appear to meet the requirements of the RAF’s own Flight Operation manual, and which has, of course, been changed since the Mull of Kintyre accident. It is of interest to see how many times has Wratten changed the outcome of a BoI? I am aware of at least two other accidents where this has occurred.
This first accident was to a Tornado F3 ZH 558, which crashed in the sea off Cyprus on 8 July 1994. There was full CVR and ADR evidence of the mistakes apparently made by the crew, but neither the BoI nor the AOC 11 Group were able to confirm with no doubt whatsoever that the crew had been negligent. Despite this Wratten changed the verdict but interestingly, despite the ADR evidence of what happened (as opposed to the hypotheses that were made for ZD 576) Wratten only found the crew “negligent” as opposed to “grossly negligent” – perhaps he did not realise that this would lead to the Chinook pilots being considered guilty of a criminal activity as opposed to a mistake that could have been avoided!
Secondly, on 1 September 1994 a Tornado (with a full ADR and CVR fit) crashed into the ground killing both pilot and navigator. The BoI stated that they “could determine exactly what had occurred in the cockpit." The pilot appeared to have deliberately flown the aircraft into the ground. The Board was satisfied that the final control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft." Despite there being full evidence available from the ADR and CVR, Higher Authority disputed the BoI’s findings and decided that any "consideration of Human Failings" would serve no useful purpose”. The cause of the accident was finally allocated as: Not Positively Determined - No findings of negligence.
I am also aware of at least one incident where Wratten’s attempt to impose his extreme flying disciplinary opinions, with a major impact on the flying career of the individual concerned, was not subsequently upheld by either DLS or the Air Force Board.
Given this background, is the cause of this major injustice to the pilots not down to Wratten’s attitude and his failure to follow the procedures required by both the RAF and natural justice (and indeed his own directive)? I am sad to say this, since in my short time as his SEngO I found Bill Wratten an excellent boss to work for, is it not the Air Marshals' and their MOD Masters' integrity and honour rather than that of the pilots that should now be questioned? In Baroness Symons’ comments to the House of Lords Liaison Committee on 28 March 2001 she stated that neither she nor the MOD would wish to see the Air Marshals effectively being “put in the dock”. The rules and need for justice apply to all and the Air Marshals have no special position either as senior officers in the Command Chain or as individuals. If there is a special position for senior officers in the Command Chain it is that they above all should ensure that rules and procedures are correct and are being effectively applied. I am certainly not seeking to put Day and Wratten in the dock, but I suggest that PPRuNer's should be seeking by all means possible (not just postings to PPRuNe) for them and MOD to agree with every independent review that has taken place and admit that a gross injustice has occurred, and for the findings of gross negligence to be withdrawn.
However, I am now resigned to the fact that under this Administration MOD officials will never do anything to investigate this injustice, and rather than making an honest an accurate assessment of anything that is presented to them they will start by defending the status quo. It might have been hoped that with our Prime Minister\'s background, training and experience and with his very publicly stated Christian beliefs in truth and justice, he would have recognized this injustice as every other independent review and organisations such as the Church of Scotland has. I would also have hoped and expected that at a government, political and personal level he would have wished to do everything needed to right it, as his predecessor and his Ministers at the time have now tried to do. Indeed, since I do not think they are doing it for party political reasons, I would very much welcome the PM\'s comments as to why his predecessor and Ministers, as the responsible government of the time, have seen fit to change their minds whereas his government has allowed MOD to continue to defend the indefensible.
END
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Good. On with the Campaign.
Mikehegland, many thanks for your signature on the petition (and to everyone else too!).
I have recieved a further detailed mailing from Air Commodore Blakeley and have been asked to post his words, in full, on the thread. They are reproduced below:
I have watched with some disappointment the continuing arguments about the cause of the accident to ZD 576 on PPRuNe. My disappointment is not with the often interesting theories being advanced (although some of the personal slanging matches and "repeats" are disappointing), but with the fact that many of your contributors are arguing so vociferously about something that will never be known. Thus even though many point out the injustice of the verdict, they are not contributing directly to correcting that very real injustice that the two pilots have suffered. I have my own theories on the serviceability and airworthiness of the aircraft which I have fully documented on PPRuNe in terms of major fact based criticisms of the BoI, but even with these supporting facts I have to admit that like everyone else I am only offering a theory - I do not know what happened, the Air Marshals do not know what happened, and even Steuart Campbell despite the support he receives from the Air Marshals' spokesman John Purdey, does not know what happened (although if Campbell was right it could not be gross negligence anyway).
The points I would wish to make are as follows:
As PPuNer's will be aware ACM Wratten was the Command Authority over AOC 38 Group (AVM Johns at the date of the accident) – the officer formally responsible for convening the BoI and setting its terms of reference (albeit with such a high profile accident it is inconceivable that the AOC in C HQSTC and even higher authorities were not involved from the start). These terms of reference led to a BoI which by its own admission was heavily biased towards an aircrew error accident (and MOD has been given the results of a very comprehensive review of the Board of Inquiry (BoI) detailing the many shortfalls on the engineering side - to which they have never responded). Wratten was then the Senior Reviewing Officer as part of the BoI process and who as both judge and jury confirmed (and with his directive, possibly instigated) the RAF verdict of Gross Negligence – equivalent of course in a civilian court to a charge of manslaughter. What some PPRuNer's may not be aware of is that in the period between the BoI reporting their findings (30 January 1995) and the final comments of Wratten as Senior Reviewing Officer (3 April 1995) Wratten issued a directive which makes his position very clear – this is given in full in Meadowbanks’ post on page 85. The detailed timetable given below makes interesting reading and perhaps explains more than we had previously realised how this gross injustice might have been perpetrated.
30 Jan 1995 - BoI formally completed – no suggestion of negligence.
16 Feb 1995 - Directive from ACM Wratten
2 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Wedge (OC Aldergrove) – no suggestion of negligence
3 Mar 1995 - BoI comments from Gp Capt Crawford (OC Odiham) – no suggestion of negligence.
20 Mar 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from AVM Day - negligence appears for the first time and is judged as being to a gross degree.
3 Apr 1995 - Reviewing Officer's comments from ACM Wratten - negligence endorsed, but now defined as Gross Negligence.
Although neither of the Station Commanders in the Review Process picked up the “actions” that they might have felt that the Wratten letter required (possibly because it had not yet reached them) the AOC 38 Gp AVM Day (as he then was) would, clearly, have had sight of it when he framed his comments, and one can imagine that with the pressures from above and knowledge of the Pandora's Box that could open if anyone started asking questions about the Mk2's introduction to service, it is reasonable to speculate that he might have felt that expanding the BoI's findings to a verdict of negligence could be a more career enhancing move than that of agreeing with either the BoI or the two Station Commanders
When one reviews the Wratten letter directive against what happened with ZD 576 there are some immediate questions that require an accurate and full response from MOD, and I would hope that PPRuNer's could lobby for this. These are:
Paragraph 2 states: “It follows that I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever, following Board of Inquiry or Unit Inquiry investigations, clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence.” Given that the BoI could not find such clear evidence and neither have any of the independent inquiries since then found such evidence what additional “evidence” as opposed to personal opinions did the Air Marshals have on which to base their verdict? On what basis did they decide that their “evidence” passed the “no doubt whatsoever requirements of AP 3207”? This is particularly relevant given that ACM Wratten’s BoI review includes the statement: “Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact.” How does this statement meet the requirements of either AP 3207 or Wratten's own letter? Wratten goes on to say that “there is no evidence whatever of any combination of possible minor problems or of any major difficulty which would have so taxed the crew that they had no option other than to keep fling towards high ground…..”. Of course there is no such evidence – there was no CVR or ADR fitted! The starting point for the BoI was that this was an aircrew error accident (but even then they did not find the aircrew negligent) and as a result there is plenty of evidence in the BoI which is either ignored or is not followed up of serious airworthiness and engineering problems with the aircraft – these have all been pointed out to MOD and pointedly ignored!
Paragraph 4 includes a clear requirement for any recommendation for disposal to be endorsed by the Director of Legal Services (RAF). Who did this in this case – Day or Wratten? When was this advice sought and what was the exact question asked? What was the DLS response and when was it given? Knowing what DLS said is particularly important as we now have first hand evidence that another "cog in the wheel" the RAF’s own professional flight safety organisation the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety advised the then CAS that there was insufficient evidence to justify a “Gross Negligence” verdict.
Paragraph 5 states “This will of course in no way undermine the certainty for those affected of a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process.” How was this “requirement” met in the period when the Reviewing Officers were making their decision, or, as many suspect, were Day and Wratten acting as judge and jury? Where were the safeguards? What was the legal process? We do not believe that any of this occurred. Certainly whatever this process was has not stood up to the independent reviews that have since taken place of it. It would be interesting to know what advice Wratten sought regarding the meaning of "Gross Negligence", but given that Air Force Law has to "mirror" the laws of England and Wales it is worth looking at what would happen in a civilian court. Gross negligence is a concept from criminal law. It is also used by various disciplinary tribunals. "Manslaughter by gross negligence" is a recognised offence. Where such a charge is brought the prosecution first has to prove negligence (ie that there was a duty of care between the defendant and the deceased and that it was breached) and secondly that the defendant's conduct was "so grossly negligent or reckless so as be properly branded criminal" (R v Devine[1999]). In each case this is a question for the jury on which they bring their common sense to bear. There is no general definition of what is and what is not capable of constituting gross negligence used in such cases. It will not escape PPRuNer's attention that in this case there was no defence and no jury, albeit it could be argued that all of the independent inquiries since then could be seen as representing a jury, and they have shown clearly that they would not have found "Gross Negligence"
In reality are we actually talking about the opinions of senior officers in the Command Chain having to be upheld regardless of any injustice caused? Certainly some of Wratten’s pubic comments about upholding the integrity of the Command Chain would indicate that this was his attitude? The Wratten letter indicates a macho commander trying to implement a very tough flight safety policy which does not appear to meet the requirements of the RAF’s own Flight Operation manual, and which has, of course, been changed since the Mull of Kintyre accident. It is of interest to see how many times has Wratten changed the outcome of a BoI? I am aware of at least two other accidents where this has occurred.
This first accident was to a Tornado F3 ZH 558, which crashed in the sea off Cyprus on 8 July 1994. There was full CVR and ADR evidence of the mistakes apparently made by the crew, but neither the BoI nor the AOC 11 Group were able to confirm with no doubt whatsoever that the crew had been negligent. Despite this Wratten changed the verdict but interestingly, despite the ADR evidence of what happened (as opposed to the hypotheses that were made for ZD 576) Wratten only found the crew “negligent” as opposed to “grossly negligent” – perhaps he did not realise that this would lead to the Chinook pilots being considered guilty of a criminal activity as opposed to a mistake that could have been avoided!
Secondly, on 1 September 1994 a Tornado (with a full ADR and CVR fit) crashed into the ground killing both pilot and navigator. The BoI stated that they “could determine exactly what had occurred in the cockpit." The pilot appeared to have deliberately flown the aircraft into the ground. The Board was satisfied that the final control inputs led directly to the loss of the aircraft." Despite there being full evidence available from the ADR and CVR, Higher Authority disputed the BoI’s findings and decided that any "consideration of Human Failings" would serve no useful purpose”. The cause of the accident was finally allocated as: Not Positively Determined - No findings of negligence.
I am also aware of at least one incident where Wratten’s attempt to impose his extreme flying disciplinary opinions, with a major impact on the flying career of the individual concerned, was not subsequently upheld by either DLS or the Air Force Board.
Given this background, is the cause of this major injustice to the pilots not down to Wratten’s attitude and his failure to follow the procedures required by both the RAF and natural justice (and indeed his own directive)? I am sad to say this, since in my short time as his SEngO I found Bill Wratten an excellent boss to work for, is it not the Air Marshals' and their MOD Masters' integrity and honour rather than that of the pilots that should now be questioned? In Baroness Symons’ comments to the House of Lords Liaison Committee on 28 March 2001 she stated that neither she nor the MOD would wish to see the Air Marshals effectively being “put in the dock”. The rules and need for justice apply to all and the Air Marshals have no special position either as senior officers in the Command Chain or as individuals. If there is a special position for senior officers in the Command Chain it is that they above all should ensure that rules and procedures are correct and are being effectively applied. I am certainly not seeking to put Day and Wratten in the dock, but I suggest that PPRuNer's should be seeking by all means possible (not just postings to PPRuNe) for them and MOD to agree with every independent review that has taken place and admit that a gross injustice has occurred, and for the findings of gross negligence to be withdrawn.
However, I am now resigned to the fact that under this Administration MOD officials will never do anything to investigate this injustice, and rather than making an honest an accurate assessment of anything that is presented to them they will start by defending the status quo. It might have been hoped that with our Prime Minister\'s background, training and experience and with his very publicly stated Christian beliefs in truth and justice, he would have recognized this injustice as every other independent review and organisations such as the Church of Scotland has. I would also have hoped and expected that at a government, political and personal level he would have wished to do everything needed to right it, as his predecessor and his Ministers at the time have now tried to do. Indeed, since I do not think they are doing it for party political reasons, I would very much welcome the PM\'s comments as to why his predecessor and Ministers, as the responsible government of the time, have seen fit to change their minds whereas his government has allowed MOD to continue to defend the indefensible.
END
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook