Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Brian Dixon]

Very kind words, Chinny Crewman, thank you.

It is, indeed, a comfort.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[cazatou]

Walter Kennedy,

With regard to the SEAL's, there were in excess of a dozen people in the immediate vicinity of the Chinook crash when it occurred. This number rapidly grew as Doctors, Ambulance Personnel, RAF & Civilian Firefighters and Civil Police arrived at the scene. Later a Crash Guard from RAF Kinloss took control of the site. NONE OF THESE PERSONNEL REPORTED ANY CONTACT WITH US NAVY PERSONNEL AT THE CRASH SITE!!! Indeed the prime concern of the Civil Police and the RAF Crash Guard was to ensure the integrity of the crash site so that the site was preserved intact for the AAIB investigators

With regard to your "Landlady". I would suggest that if you mentioned "SEAL" to the average British person they would think of an aquatic mammal. I would further suggest that you would initially get the same response from British Military personnel unless/until you qualify the term by referring specifically to the military context (and even then I would be surprised if more than 25% of those questioned had ever heard of them). How would the Landlady of a Campbeltown B&B come to believe (without prompting) that one of her guests was a USN SEAL?

Like the SAS they do not tend to advertise their whereabouts.

PS You still don't get it -do you?

If your theory is correct then the pilots are guilty of gross negligence without any doubt whatsoever.

[Brian Dixon]

Remembrance Sunday.

On this day, in particular, - All who have fallen in the service of their country.

In particular:
Jonathan Tapper
Richard Cook
Graeme Forbes
Kevin Hardie

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[vecvechookattack]

Like the SAS they do not tend to advertise their whereabouts

Please don't link together US Navy Seals and the SAS/SBS. They are entirely different. If you search the internet for NAVY SEALS yopu will find web sites giving names, photographs etc. There is a SEALS museum with artifacts etc. Try and find photographs and names of SAS/SBS. Totally different.

[dalek]

My MP Ben Wallace has now signed. My last MP, Hilton Dawson (Labour), would not support the motion because his friend Geoff told him the case had no merit.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

My new MP has written me a letter, which I'll check in detail when I'm back in the UK next month - inshallah. He says he doesn't sign EDMs (although I see his name against 4 others on that very useful website) but goes on to detail the steps he intends taking in support of the campaign.

So a conditional 'hurrah' then - much better than the previous incumbent (revealed to have been the SW's most expensive-to-run MP) who never bothered to reply and didn't even have an email address.

[walter kennedy]

cazatou
The SEALS were stationed at Macrihanish; this was discussed some time ago – here is a sample posting:
Antenna posted 23rd September 2004
<<… With respect to Walter's somewhat earlier posting relating to US presence, I spoke to US Navy SEALS above the crash site at the time of the crash so can confirm their presence and their involvement in a recovery operation. I cannot confirm their precise role. They may not have had one beyond being asked to help in a general way. I mention this presence only as I know privately the issue of US presence has been a source of debate. The US was there the day after and on June 4 also. Why? No idea.>>

RE the landlady bit: I had a pretty good witness standing next to me whilst I spoke to her; as US SEALS were there off and on for YEARS I would have thought that the locals would have a pretty good idea of what was what – have you ever been to that part of the world? – the locals are quite perceptive – I don’t know what parts of the provinces gave you your condescending view of the general population.

[tucumseh]

"I would have thought that the locals would have a pretty good idea of what was what – have you ever been to that part of the world? – the locals are quite perceptive – I don’t know what parts of the provinces gave you your condescending view of the general population".


Spot on WK. Same at Kyle, Plockton, Benbecula, West Freugh etc where the locals are extremely canny having relied a great deal on MoD for their economy for decades. They know what’s what. (As do the MoD of course).

[vecvechookattack]

They know what’s what. (As do the MoD of course)

If the MOD know whats, what. Then surely they were guilty of gross negligence. Was it not the MOD you declared that the crew were guilty. Who pronounced them guilty?

[Brian Dixon]

Dalek,
many thaks for getting your new MP to sign the EDM (it now stands at 157 signatures!). I'm quite shocked to hear that Geoffers has a friend!

Thud
as always, your support is greatly appreciated. If you are near to the old stomping ground when back in Blighty, give me a shout.

With regards to all things SEAL, I have to say that I, personally, have seen nothing that confirms their presence on the crash site either at the time of, or subsequent to the accident. I accept that there is second/third hand personal evidence, uncorroborated by statements, witness testimony etc. Same goes for the knowledge/perception/belief of local residents. I would have thought that anyone who attended the site would have given testimony to aid the subsequent accident investigation.

Personally, I feel a bigger question is this - Why is there no desire from the MoD to welcome the opportunity to re-examine anything, no matter how small, to clear the names of two of their own? When the question was asked of John Reid, he had no answer.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" -John Cook

[TheAerosCo]

EDM

Thud

My MP gave me the same reply - that he doesn’t “do” EDMs. Your post prompted me to check how many he had signed - about 135! So I will write to him again.
To give him his due, however, he did write to Adam Ingram in support of the campaign, but not surprisingly received the standard reply ending with “The Government retains every confidence in the judgement of the reviewing officers, but remains prepared to review its position should any compelling new factual evidence be brought”. So no change there, then.

[Whirlygig]

I was pointed in the direction of this thread by a fellow ppruner in order to add my support as I had thought (through our illustrious media and its diligent journalists) that the pilots had already had their names cleared.

My MP, Norman Lamb, has already signed the EDM. I hadn't realised that one of the pilots was local to me in Norfolk.

Keep up the good work Brian and others.

Cheers

Whirls

[Brian Dixon]

AerosCO,
thank you. I wish you well in obtaining the signature. Could you also ask that your MP makes their support known to James Arbuthnot MP, the Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Group.

Whirlygig,
thank you, too. It is always writing back to your MP thanking them for their support. As above, you could ask Mr Lamb to make James aware of his support.

Thank you all very much.
Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[tucumseh]

VV

“If the MOD know whats, what. Then surely they were guilty of gross negligence. Was it not the MOD you declared that the crew were guilty. Who pronounced them guilty?”

-----------------------------------------------


I can’t see how you come to this statement, based on what I said. My simple point was that, in my opinion, WK was correct in what he said about the citizens of the Mull peninsula. But, you are entitled to your opinion.



It would be extremely naïve to think the “guilty” verdict of the AVMs represented the view of the whole MoD. The issue is clearly political. This forum is built on rumours, but I know one fact; the MoD individuals most closely connected with this tragedy simply do not know what happened. (But read the documents available on the web and it is clear why their bosses – all now retired - were nervous over numerous procedural and airworthiness issues). In my mind and, I came to believe, theirs (and I knew every one of them in PE), the verdict is a travesty of natural justice. Let us hope the EDM bears fruit (and, yes, my MP has signed it and since written again to SoS).

[Gorgophone]

Chinook - still hitting back

From 4 Jul 06 Scottish and Irish Air Cadets will be holding four weeks of annual camps, each of three hundred cadets at RAF Machrahanish. This is probably the base's last use before closure.

In addition to normal cadet activities three community projects will be undertaken. Two of these are the restoration of both the Chinook memorial and the footpath leading up to it. RAF Chinook and USAF C130 support has been promised. A church service/rededication may be held. :-)

Cadet activities will include:
Gliding
Air Experience Flying in Tutors (and pos service aircraft)
Adventure Training
Ham Radio
Duke of Edinburghs Award
etc

[Brian Dixon]

Gorgophone,
this is a lovely gesture, thank you very much. I have brought it to the attention of those in the Campaign and have been asked to post their personal responses.

Mike Tapper (Father of Jonathan):
Please tell your friend how grateful we are for this gesture which is greatly appreciated and please pass our best wishes to the Air Cadets who will be taking part in this project. It means a lot to us.

Mike and Hazel Tapper.

Chris Cook (Brother of Rick Cook):
I am delighted to hear about this, it is a great honour to all who died on ZD576 that this work is planned. Let us hope the Scottish summer weather is kind to the air cadets!

Regards,

Chris

James Arbuthnot MP (Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Campaign Group):
I am delighted that the air cadets are undertaking this work. Honouring the dead is as essential to the operation of our first rate armed forces as are the more immediate requirements of providing the armed forces with proper pay, good equipment and inspirational leadership. And those who died in the Chinook crash were men and women of great distinction in their many fields.

It is deeply affecting to find there are so many who care for those who died so long ago. We hope the 12th anniversary may bring what has eluded us so far - a setting aside of the verdict against Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook, killed in and blamed for this crash.

In honouring their memory we help to keep alive the spirit that makes our country so good at what we do. We should all be grateful to the air cadets, but also to the Church of Scotland, the RAF and the USAF for their support for this excellent operation.

Yours ever,

James

Receiving the message was, for me, very humbling. I too, add my sincere thanks to the cadets. I have written to the Regional Commandant to formally record the thanks of the Campaign.

I've put a bid in for photographs too!

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[FJJP]

I have just received a letter from my MP, Jonathan Djanogly, in which he expresses support for the campaign and commits to signing the EDM [which he has since done]. Of note, Johnathan is a Sqn Ldr in the Parliamentary Members Armed Forces Scheme, where they adopt 'honorary ranks' and get more involved in their chosen Service. He has visited a number of bases and flown in a Nimrod and a Tornado to my certain knowledge.

As an ex-Air cadet, may I express my thanks and gratitude to the lads and lasses who are intending to undertake the restoration work on the memorial - well done.

And well done to the Chinook Force and Bravo Zulu to the USAF for supporting this venture. I know it gives a huge boost to the Air Cadets when the regular Forces become involved in their activities.

FJJP

[cazatou]

walter kennedy,

Quote "have you ever been to that part of the world?"

Well - YES!!!

I joined the RAF the day after Sir Winston Churchill died. (You will have to look that one up for yourself)!!

I first landed at Machrihanish on Oct 27 1967 and I last landed there (after a career that involved over 7700 flying hours) on 22 June 1993.

As a Transport Pilot I have been priviliged to travel to many parts of the world in several continents - I even went to Moscow during the Cold War.

As for being condescending - well, I was born in the "East End Maternity Hospital", Commercial Road, Limehouse in 1946. Technically, I am a "Cockney": I say "technically" because, of course, courtesy of the Luftwaffe; there were NO "Bow Bells".

[John Blakeley]

ZD 576 - A Reminder

I usually try to get Brian Dixon to help post some of the background work I have been doing on the engineering and maintenance aspects of the BoI into the crash of ZD 576, but he is I know very busy, and I thought that I should try and contribute in my own right. Long term PPRuNe users may recall that Brian put a major engineering critique onto the main web site around 18 months ago, and this still stands, with MOD never having responded to it except with the ususal platitude of "no new evidence". Most of the contributors to PPRuNe have, rightly, concentrated on operational matters as befits a professionsl pilots web site (I am afraid that I can only claim a PPL) but interesting, and indeed relevant, as many of these observations are they can do very little to change the mind of an obstinate MOD - especially when they can ignore all the other inputs from the House of Lords down.

Nevertheless we cannot and should not give up the fight, and the latest information we are obtaining under the FOIA shows quite clearly just how "hit and miss" RAF justice in the shape of BOI findings was in the early 90s - thus we need to take every opportunity to keep pressure on the MOD through EDMs, MP's letters etc. I also have no doubt that one area where MOD is vulnerable is that of the "airworthiness" of the Chinook Mk 11 (in terms of its release to service limitations at the time) and the defect history of ZD 576 in particular.

The RAFA Journal Air Mail, which some of you may have seen, recently reviewed the Campbell book Chinook Crash, and this led me to respond to the Editor. However, since with its apolitical policy I am not sure that my letter will get published I thought that it might be worthwhile to publish it on PPRuNE just as reminder of some of the issues involved:


"I was pleased to see that the reviewer of Steuart Campbell’s book “Chinook Crash” rightly raised the point that many people are very unhappy with Reviewing Officers’ verdict, against the findings of the BoI and the two Station Commanders comments before them, of Gross Negligence. As many of your readers will know this represents a finding which is a criminal one of manslaughter or culpable homicide. What your reviewer does not mention is that every independent review of this verdict, including a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and a House of Lords Select Committee, and even, with subsequent public statements, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence of the time have found “against” the two Air Marshals. At paragraph 174 of their Conclusions the House of Lords Select Committee, having listened to all of the arguments of the two Air Marshals comments:

“In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.”

Despite this MOD steadfastly sticks by this unjust and outrageous verdict, which not only broke the RAF’s rules of the time on finding deceased aircrew negligent but did so without any chance of the “guilty” pilots being able to defend themselves. This is why the Mull of Kintyre Group is still so active now some 11 years after the accident and why the respected and independent legal publication “Juridical Review” in July 2001 commented:

The fundamental role of a RAF board of inquiry should be to determine the cause of an accident without prejudice. Any other function is not part of its remit and accordingly ultra vires. It is increasingly apparent that the present approach of the board of inquiry process and that of objective investigation are irreconcilable. Accordingly the system must be revised to ensure that those officers who control the findings of boards of inquiry should not be those engaged in management and command responsibility for the aircraft and the personnel involved.

Turning to the book itself, unfortunately your reviewer gives credibility to the Campbell book that, having read the first drafts, I would suggest that it should not have – albeit I would accept that in many respects it is a “good read”. In particular your reviewer states “Campbell’s closely argued conclusion shows how the accident occurred.” This is nonsense – like the rest of us Campbell does not know – the aircraft was not fitted with either an Accident Data Recorder or a Cockpit Voice Recorder. Even when finding the pilots guilty of Gross Negligence the AOC in C starts his comments with “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 prior to impact.”

A true caveat which he unfortunately he seems to have ignored when he goes on to say:

“I therefore agree with the AOC’s summary, in particular that the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. I also conclude that this amounted to gross negligence.”

If Campbell’s theory as to the cause of the accident was correct then it could, depending on other factors, amount to an aircrew error, but not, by the standards of the time, gross negligence. However, Campbell has been very selective in his choice of facts from the BoI proceedings and I would suggest that his theory has no more credibility, and indeed given the facts significantly less credibility, than those of us who believe that there were serious question marks regarding the airworthiness standard of the Chinook Mk 2 fleet at this stage of its release to service, and the pre-crash defect history of ZD 576 in particular. This was an area where the BoI did very little follow-up, and it is interesting that the word airworthiness does not figure anywhere in the BoI proceedings despite the fact that the Chinook Mk2 had effectively been grounded within the flight test organisation at the time of the accident.

The BoI starts with the assertion:

“Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence to eliminate as possible causes: major technical malfunction or structural failure of the aircraft prior to impact; …… Therefore the Inquiry focused on the crew’s handling and operation of the aircraft.”

Since there is more than enough evidence within the BoI itself to show that this assertion is unsupportable one has to wonder if this was a case of the decision being made very early on to “situate the appreciation” that this had to be an aircrew error accident. The BoI shows quite clearly that the Chinook Mk 2 fleet was suffering a continuing series of problems, any one of which could have caused the pilots of ZD 576 to have been either unable, or so distracted, that they failed to make the turn up the west coast of the Mull. For example a senior OCU instructor in evidence to the BoI comments:

“The unforeseen malfunctions on the Chinook HC2 of a flight critical nature have mainly been associated with the engine system FADEC. They have resulted in undemanded engine shutdown, engine run-up, spurious engine failure captions and misleading and confusing cockpit indications.”

There are literally dozens of other areas where evidence relating to the airworthiness, engineering or maintenance standards of both the fleet and the aircraft are ignored or not followed up. Even on the operational side the “join” where the BoI was told to look again is very obvious. Until now, because they pick and choose the facts that suit them MOD has been able to ignore all criticisms of the judgement – even that of the HoL Select Committee. MOD’s need to keep this as a pilot error accident is clearly paramount because if it were to be found that it was not then Pandora's Box is opened on the whole process of getting the Chinook Mk II into service and the decision to use it for such a passenger flight. Would you climb onto an airliner you knew had such Release To Service limitations; was suffering from a wide range of "flight safety critical" false and real transient problems, and which had just been grounded by the test and certification organisation of the same "airline"? It seems to me that the major failure in the duty of care that the RAF owed these individuals occurred not in the hands of the pilots but when the Mk II was selected for the mission against the advice of the Detachment Commander and in the case of ZD 576 with so many still unresolved defects – Sadly Campbell’s book does not look at these issues in any critical way at all. "

John Blakeley

[An Teallach]

An excellent letter, Mr Blakely. As a RAFA life member I would be very disappointed if the editor of Air Mail does not publish the letter. It strikes me as informed, measured and wholly apolitical.

As to where we go from here, we are now in a position where every independant review of this accident has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify the reviewing officers' findings.

The MoD is now in the position of arguing that the MOKG must produce new evidence to warrant overturning a finding which was unsafe precisely because there was, is, and forever shall be insufficient evidence to sustain it in the first place.

If we focus on the current MoD position, which could only have been dreamed up by the combined wits of Heller, Orwell and Kafka; it would surely satisfy the 'Wednesbury' test of unreasonableness or irrationality to warrant overturning by Judicial Review.

Now, successful judicial review on the above point would only require the MoD to re-examine the finding and would cost in the region of £20 - £30K. While this may not be out of the reach of a public subscription fund, there would be no requirement for MoD to make a different finding after re-examination so the costs probably outweigh the potential benefits to us.

However, with such a clear-cut case of Wednesbury irrationality or unreasonableness we should be able to put together a case for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to examine and, hopefully conclude that the MoD's requirement for new evidence in this case is of itself irrational and perpetuating an injustice.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman option is free of charge and, to my mind, demolishing the MoD's current argument is right up the Ombudsman's street:

"The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA) - more commonly known as the Parliamentary Ombudsman - can investigate complaints about actions (or inactions) of central government departments and other public bodies. The complainant must have suffered injustice as a result of the action or inaction."

I am not legally qualified and have no experience of putting a case together for the Ombudsman. However, Brian, if there's anything I can do to help putting a case together, you know where I am.