Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Article
Chinook Petition
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks XEXPAT, the names are trickling in nicely.
For those who may not have seen it, the petition states:
"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."
If you wish to add your name to the petition, please go to campaign's website at www.chinook-justice.org and click on the Petition box on the left. Put your name in the box and click "Add Name", and that's all there is to it.
Your support will make the difference.
For those who may not have seen it, the petition states:
"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."
If you wish to add your name to the petition, please go to campaign's website at www.chinook-justice.org and click on the Petition box on the left. Put your name in the box and click "Add Name", and that's all there is to it.
Your support will make the difference.
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
Another excellent article from Tony Collins and Computer Weekly . Three stories are available on their web site:
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113030
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113027
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113043
People just keep coming out and speaking about this injustice, don't they. Perhaps they are all trying to tell the Government and MoD something. Perhaps they should start listening.
I wonder how many more people are out there waiting to tell their story?
We will NOT go away.
Cheers Tony and Computer Weekly for yet another great contribution.
Thanks to everyone for their support.
If you haven't signed the petition, please give it serious consideration.
If you haven't contacted your MP please also consider doing so.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113030
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113027
http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113043
People just keep coming out and speaking about this injustice, don't they. Perhaps they are all trying to tell the Government and MoD something. Perhaps they should start listening.
I wonder how many more people are out there waiting to tell their story?
We will NOT go away.
Cheers Tony and Computer Weekly for yet another great contribution.
Thanks to everyone for their support.
If you haven't signed the petition, please give it serious consideration.
If you haven't contacted your MP please also consider doing so.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 6th Jun 2002 at 18:21.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top story in today's Scotsman:
Fiscal accuses MoD of Chinook cover-up
John Staples
THE law officer who investigated the catastrophic Chinook helicopter crash has described the conclusions of the Ministry of Defence inquiry as "ridiculous" - and claims the MoD attempted to block his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry (FAI).
Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said there was no basis for the central finding - that pilots Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were guilty of "gross negligence" and to blame for the accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June, 1994.
He also claimed the release of a technical report into the disaster was held up, preventing the FAI taking place for 18 months. Mr Henderson also called into question the ability of the military to remain impartial in their attempt to find the cause of the RAF’s worst peacetime accident, which killed 29 people, including the cream of Britain’s anti-terrorism intelligence.
Three reports have already dismissed the MoD’s claims of pilot error, but earlier this year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, refused to back the most recent one, by the House of Lords, which also poured scorn on the official version of events. Relatives of the pilots have dismissed the official findings as a whitewash and believe there were technical defects with the Chinook helicopter.
In his first interview about the crash investigation, published today in Computer Weekly magazine, Mr Henderson said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."
He said the MoD’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay.
He added: "It was obvious that they were concerned that they could not control the outcome of our inquiry."
Following these findings, doubts were raised about the reliability of a new computer software system - FADEC - used to fly the aircraft. Asked what he thought of the MoD’s verdict, Mr Henderson told the magazine: "Ridiculous."
The Chinook helicopter smashed into the 1,404ft Beinn na Lice in atrocious weather conditions during a flight from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George, near Inverness. As well as Flight Lieutenants Cook, 30, and Tapper, 28, two experienced crewmen and 25 of the most senior SAS and MI5 counter-terrorist officers were killed, including the head of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland.
Mr Henderson, who is now retired, said he believes a technical report by Tony Cable, chief investigator of the crash at the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, was ready in late 1994, a few months after the accident.
He added: "I could not have an FAI without the technical report. There would have been a huge hole in the middle of my investigation"
Although the technical investigation report was dated 5 January 1995, the MoD did not make it available to Mr Henderson until June of that year.
He said he was then told that it could not be used as evidence for an FAI without the MoD’s clearance.
"Eventually I got a grudging letter from the MoD saying I could lodge the report [in September 1995]. That was after I had asked the Crown Office to take the matter up at a ministerial level," Mr Henderson said.
He insisted that the delay made it almost impossible for the families to prepare a case for a judicial review within the stipulated three-month time period of the judgment by the RAF Board of Inquiry in April 1995.
Although Mr Cable’s report found no evidence of any technical cause of the crash, it revealed many uncertainties over the state of equipment damaged by impact. In particular, it said one of the Chinook MK2’s FADEC control systems had been destroyed in a fire .
The FAI eventually concluded that there was no evidence to support the RAF’s findings against the pilots.
But Mr Henderson said the resistance he met in holding an FAI "does not inspire much confidence in the impartiality of the MoD".
In response to allegations of hindering the FAI, the MoD said in a statement: "The MoD believes it co-operated fully with Sheriff Sir Stephen Young's FAI. Indeed, the Lord Advocate has since stated there is no evidence to justify re-opening that inquiry".
This article:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=609222002
More Chinook inquiry:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213
Fiscal accuses MoD of Chinook cover-up
John Staples
THE law officer who investigated the catastrophic Chinook helicopter crash has described the conclusions of the Ministry of Defence inquiry as "ridiculous" - and claims the MoD attempted to block his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry (FAI).
Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said there was no basis for the central finding - that pilots Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were guilty of "gross negligence" and to blame for the accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June, 1994.
He also claimed the release of a technical report into the disaster was held up, preventing the FAI taking place for 18 months. Mr Henderson also called into question the ability of the military to remain impartial in their attempt to find the cause of the RAF’s worst peacetime accident, which killed 29 people, including the cream of Britain’s anti-terrorism intelligence.
Three reports have already dismissed the MoD’s claims of pilot error, but earlier this year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, refused to back the most recent one, by the House of Lords, which also poured scorn on the official version of events. Relatives of the pilots have dismissed the official findings as a whitewash and believe there were technical defects with the Chinook helicopter.
In his first interview about the crash investigation, published today in Computer Weekly magazine, Mr Henderson said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."
He said the MoD’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay.
He added: "It was obvious that they were concerned that they could not control the outcome of our inquiry."
Following these findings, doubts were raised about the reliability of a new computer software system - FADEC - used to fly the aircraft. Asked what he thought of the MoD’s verdict, Mr Henderson told the magazine: "Ridiculous."
The Chinook helicopter smashed into the 1,404ft Beinn na Lice in atrocious weather conditions during a flight from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George, near Inverness. As well as Flight Lieutenants Cook, 30, and Tapper, 28, two experienced crewmen and 25 of the most senior SAS and MI5 counter-terrorist officers were killed, including the head of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland.
Mr Henderson, who is now retired, said he believes a technical report by Tony Cable, chief investigator of the crash at the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, was ready in late 1994, a few months after the accident.
He added: "I could not have an FAI without the technical report. There would have been a huge hole in the middle of my investigation"
Although the technical investigation report was dated 5 January 1995, the MoD did not make it available to Mr Henderson until June of that year.
He said he was then told that it could not be used as evidence for an FAI without the MoD’s clearance.
"Eventually I got a grudging letter from the MoD saying I could lodge the report [in September 1995]. That was after I had asked the Crown Office to take the matter up at a ministerial level," Mr Henderson said.
He insisted that the delay made it almost impossible for the families to prepare a case for a judicial review within the stipulated three-month time period of the judgment by the RAF Board of Inquiry in April 1995.
Although Mr Cable’s report found no evidence of any technical cause of the crash, it revealed many uncertainties over the state of equipment damaged by impact. In particular, it said one of the Chinook MK2’s FADEC control systems had been destroyed in a fire .
The FAI eventually concluded that there was no evidence to support the RAF’s findings against the pilots.
But Mr Henderson said the resistance he met in holding an FAI "does not inspire much confidence in the impartiality of the MoD".
In response to allegations of hindering the FAI, the MoD said in a statement: "The MoD believes it co-operated fully with Sheriff Sir Stephen Young's FAI. Indeed, the Lord Advocate has since stated there is no evidence to justify re-opening that inquiry".
This article:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=609222002
More Chinook inquiry:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still Hitting Back
A few questions regarding the current impasse over the Chinook Campaign.
Q1 Why is it that PM Blair, Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon, and two senior Air Officers consider that they alone are the only parade members marching in step?
Q2 What does one consider may be in the can of worms that these four and MoD are sitting so resolutely on, and trying desperately to prevent being opened?
Q3 What is the constitutional situation whereby this particular group can defy the findings of so many other legally constituted inquiries, all of which have been unable to find a cause of the subject accident, “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Like all others I am saddened by the King Chanute attitude displayed by the gang of four.
HectorusRex
Q1 Why is it that PM Blair, Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon, and two senior Air Officers consider that they alone are the only parade members marching in step?
Q2 What does one consider may be in the can of worms that these four and MoD are sitting so resolutely on, and trying desperately to prevent being opened?
Q3 What is the constitutional situation whereby this particular group can defy the findings of so many other legally constituted inquiries, all of which have been unable to find a cause of the subject accident, “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Like all others I am saddened by the King Chanute attitude displayed by the gang of four.
HectorusRex
Last edited by HectorusRex; 7th Jun 2002 at 09:53.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Scotsman again:
Blair urged to sort out Chinook fiasco
Hamish Macdonell Scottish Political Editor
TONY Blair was facing demands last night that he intervene personally to end the confusion over the Chinook helicopter crash.
David Davis, the Conservative Party chairman, called on the Prime Minister to get involved after the law officer who investigated the 1994 crash claimed the Ministry of Defence had blocked his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry.
Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said this week that the military stalled a technical report into the crash in which 29 people, including top British intelligence officers, were killed on the Mull of Kintyre.
And he claimed that there was no basis for the MoD’s central finding, that the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were guilty of "gross negligence", lambasting the ministry’s inquiry as ridiculous.
Relatives of the pilots have claimed there were technical defects with the helicopter.
Mr Henderson’s intervention represents the latest in a series of developments since the 1994 crash, almost all of which have cast doubt on the findings of the MoD defence inquiry.
Mr Davis said yesterday that the only way the affair could be cleared up now, particularly following the claims that the MoD had tried to block an initial inquiry, was with the intervention of the Prime Minister.
Mr Davis said: "These are very serious allegations, and I expect the government to give full and prompt answers to explain why the MoD seemed to impede the inquiry into the crash.
"What is worrying is that this is yet another indication of the MoD’s less than impartial attitude to this case.
"This shows that nothing less than the personal intervention of the Prime Minister is needed to ensure that justice is done.
"We can never be convinced of a fair and just outcome if the final decision is simply left to the Ministry of Defence."
Mr Henderson sparked the latest controversy over the eight-year-old crash in an interview with Computer Weekly magazine.
He said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."
The military’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay, he said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that the military had co-operated fully with the FAI.
This article:
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=618962002
More Chinook inquiry:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213
Blair urged to sort out Chinook fiasco
Hamish Macdonell Scottish Political Editor
TONY Blair was facing demands last night that he intervene personally to end the confusion over the Chinook helicopter crash.
David Davis, the Conservative Party chairman, called on the Prime Minister to get involved after the law officer who investigated the 1994 crash claimed the Ministry of Defence had blocked his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry.
Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said this week that the military stalled a technical report into the crash in which 29 people, including top British intelligence officers, were killed on the Mull of Kintyre.
And he claimed that there was no basis for the MoD’s central finding, that the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were guilty of "gross negligence", lambasting the ministry’s inquiry as ridiculous.
Relatives of the pilots have claimed there were technical defects with the helicopter.
Mr Henderson’s intervention represents the latest in a series of developments since the 1994 crash, almost all of which have cast doubt on the findings of the MoD defence inquiry.
Mr Davis said yesterday that the only way the affair could be cleared up now, particularly following the claims that the MoD had tried to block an initial inquiry, was with the intervention of the Prime Minister.
Mr Davis said: "These are very serious allegations, and I expect the government to give full and prompt answers to explain why the MoD seemed to impede the inquiry into the crash.
"What is worrying is that this is yet another indication of the MoD’s less than impartial attitude to this case.
"This shows that nothing less than the personal intervention of the Prime Minister is needed to ensure that justice is done.
"We can never be convinced of a fair and just outcome if the final decision is simply left to the Ministry of Defence."
Mr Henderson sparked the latest controversy over the eight-year-old crash in an interview with Computer Weekly magazine.
He said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."
The military’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay, he said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that the military had co-operated fully with the FAI.
This article:
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=618962002
More Chinook inquiry:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213
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
Hectorus,
Just my opinion but here's an attempt to answer your questions:
Question 1.
When you have your fingers in your ears, you can't hear the band or the commands.
Besides, we're all serfs. They know best.
Question 2.
a. Who took the decision to keep the Mk 2 in service.
b. Who took the decision to fly the pax on a dodgy aircraft.
c. Who took the decision to select which information was to be given to investigators.
d. Who took the decision to withold certain information from investigators.
e. What information is held that has not been classed as 'evidence' and therefore not disclosed.
There are plenty more of those little worms too!
Question 3.
I'm not sure it is constitutional. We may be putting it to the test sometime soon!
You may recall that King Canute lost his particular battle
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just my opinion but here's an attempt to answer your questions:
Question 1.
When you have your fingers in your ears, you can't hear the band or the commands.
Besides, we're all serfs. They know best.
Question 2.
a. Who took the decision to keep the Mk 2 in service.
b. Who took the decision to fly the pax on a dodgy aircraft.
c. Who took the decision to select which information was to be given to investigators.
d. Who took the decision to withold certain information from investigators.
e. What information is held that has not been classed as 'evidence' and therefore not disclosed.
There are plenty more of those little worms too!
Question 3.
I'm not sure it is constitutional. We may be putting it to the test sometime soon!
You may recall that King Canute lost his particular battle
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pessimistic part of me suggests that little will change until the matter starts popping up more regularly on the TV news, thereby pushing it more in to the eye-level of the voting public. Newspaper and magazine coverage is great, but considering the literacy rates in this country and the pervasive nature of television, the way to get the public interested is for it to keep cropping up on the boob-tube. Interested public ask questions, which the media then want to cover/answer in order to gain more viewers/readers and so it would become a self-feeding loop for a while (until the public get bored again, or a new pop star is discovered or Kylie gets married). It was this 'frenzy' that created enough pressure to ditch Byers, so it should be enough to pressure BLiar in to pushing for a resolution here as well. Trouble is, how do you get the TV news to push it in to the public eye further?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Daily Mail are usually pretty proactive on injustice campaigns, and not afraid to have a crack at the Government of the day. they must be worth a phone call. I am aslo surprised the DT have not taken it further.
What is needed is some dodgy advisory e-mail - not being flippant here, and anyway the incident was pre MoD e mail, but you know what I mean. In view of the Paddington news this week, you can bet this campaign has been vetted for political motive, and the lead individuals probably deeply vetted.
However there is a down side to raising the PR stakes - because ulitmately if you are playing poker with 2 pairs [4 Aces
] it don't matter how much you can flatten the other side, if they have a huge warchest they can see you off the park. You have the winnning hand but still lose - unless you can find a benefactor. Someone with huge public clout who could lead. Question - who?
There are of course the familes to consider - any attempt at the very public route would have to be with their consent.
I have more faith in the Scots justice systrem and the Scots Parliament than I do in London, where El Presidente knows no limits to his arrogance and disregard for protocol, as the Jubilee proved in a different way.
Brian's questions listed above seem to allude to a significant engineer somewhere in the loop, and one wonders if it is the engineering branch that are holding the parcel at the moment, and a little fearful of the music stopping.
The can of worms may be in that argument somewhere, unless it is the simple issue of the peace process at all costs.
Maybe there is a fear that a decision on this case would raise concerns that a/c maintenance would be vunerble to wholesale contractorisation, which of course may be a hidden agenda at MoD anyway. I have been convinced that the treasury are locked in a deth battle with MoD for some years, and the contractorisation process slots in nicely to a weakening of their direct sphere of influence.
We could do a lot worse than have a concerted letter campaign to our MPs for starters, as many of you have. Good letters to the DT and The Times are always worth a try as well, and if they have a high profile series of names on them, they can be effective.
As Brian says, it costs little to keep trying. Think of it as a bit like eating an elephant.
What is needed is some dodgy advisory e-mail - not being flippant here, and anyway the incident was pre MoD e mail, but you know what I mean. In view of the Paddington news this week, you can bet this campaign has been vetted for political motive, and the lead individuals probably deeply vetted.
However there is a down side to raising the PR stakes - because ulitmately if you are playing poker with 2 pairs [4 Aces
] it don't matter how much you can flatten the other side, if they have a huge warchest they can see you off the park. You have the winnning hand but still lose - unless you can find a benefactor. Someone with huge public clout who could lead. Question - who?There are of course the familes to consider - any attempt at the very public route would have to be with their consent.
I have more faith in the Scots justice systrem and the Scots Parliament than I do in London, where El Presidente knows no limits to his arrogance and disregard for protocol, as the Jubilee proved in a different way.
Brian's questions listed above seem to allude to a significant engineer somewhere in the loop, and one wonders if it is the engineering branch that are holding the parcel at the moment, and a little fearful of the music stopping.
The can of worms may be in that argument somewhere, unless it is the simple issue of the peace process at all costs.
Maybe there is a fear that a decision on this case would raise concerns that a/c maintenance would be vunerble to wholesale contractorisation, which of course may be a hidden agenda at MoD anyway. I have been convinced that the treasury are locked in a deth battle with MoD for some years, and the contractorisation process slots in nicely to a weakening of their direct sphere of influence.
We could do a lot worse than have a concerted letter campaign to our MPs for starters, as many of you have. Good letters to the DT and The Times are always worth a try as well, and if they have a high profile series of names on them, they can be effective.
As Brian says, it costs little to keep trying. Think of it as a bit like eating an elephant.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Text of Letter being sent to Rt Hon Tony Blair MP
Dear Prime Minister
RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994
As a lawyer you will be aware that in order to prove negligence there are three obstacles that have to be overcome.
1 That a duty of care was owed
In the case of Flt Lts Cook and Tapper the pilots of an RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576 that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 it is accepted that they owed a duty of care to the occupants of that aircraft.
2 That the duty of care was breached
The House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 published on 31 January 2002 concluded in para 174 that “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”.
RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased aircrew could be found negligent only where there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
3 That damages flowed from that breach
As there was no finding of breach of duty this does not apply.
I would be grateful if you could explain to me why your Government has not acted to correct the wrong caused to the deceased officers and their families in what is basically a simple matter of law and why they are not being afforded the natural justice to which they are entitled.
I look for forward to your reply
slj
Dear Prime Minister
RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994
As a lawyer you will be aware that in order to prove negligence there are three obstacles that have to be overcome.
1 That a duty of care was owed
In the case of Flt Lts Cook and Tapper the pilots of an RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576 that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 it is accepted that they owed a duty of care to the occupants of that aircraft.
2 That the duty of care was breached
The House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 published on 31 January 2002 concluded in para 174 that “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”.
RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased aircrew could be found negligent only where there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
3 That damages flowed from that breach
As there was no finding of breach of duty this does not apply.
I would be grateful if you could explain to me why your Government has not acted to correct the wrong caused to the deceased officers and their families in what is basically a simple matter of law and why they are not being afforded the natural justice to which they are entitled.
I look for forward to your reply
slj
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I urge all of you to go to Computer Weekly -
http://www.cw360.com
put Chinook in their search box, top left, - they have really done a job on reporting this.
I've just written to thank the editor Karl.
http://www.cw360.com
put Chinook in their search box, top left, - they have really done a job on reporting this.
I've just written to thank the editor Karl.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Computer Weekly story and the cover up allegation was in my view a big story, but the media as a whole were not interested. It received disappointing coverage, but what coverage there was was good. Full credit to the Scottish press.
My understanding is that the media will only become interested in it again when the "final result" is known. Given that we seem to be drifting to an unfavourable result, this is not good at all.
I think it would be helpful if some SERVING pilots made their concerns publicly known about this again. That would make them sit up and take notice. Easier said than done, I appreciate though.
TL.
My understanding is that the media will only become interested in it again when the "final result" is known. Given that we seem to be drifting to an unfavourable result, this is not good at all.
I think it would be helpful if some SERVING pilots made their concerns publicly known about this again. That would make them sit up and take notice. Easier said than done, I appreciate though.
TL.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the chinook
as an ex serving member of the raf(non aircrew) the one thing that has always stuck in my mind about the chinook crash is the fact that the first two numbers on the chinook transponder were 77, this was not mentioned in the accident report but was reported in the fatal accident inquiry. incidentally the channel four documentary made a great fuss about the fai saying how there wouldnt have been one if the accident had happened in england. this is true, but in england it would have been the subject of an inquest by the coroner, coroners dont exist in scotland. i'll finish on a slightly cynical note, i cant help wondering if there would have been all this publicity if it had not been carrying all those int personnel(and just why were they all travelling together, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to go by civvy air) and if the father of one of the pilots hadnt been an ex airline captain, and if it had been nco pilots i dont think air marshal wratten would have found them negligent. dont forget wratten had sent out a letter to all station commanders about officers bahaviour, and not before time!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra
The points you make do nothing to further either debate or the campaign. There is no evidence explaining precisely the motive of the senior air officers. If you have the evidence, rather than cynical general points of view, place them on this thread.
Many ask the question why these men and one woman were put on a mil. craft - it was SOP. The request for them to fly together came from one of the pax who subsequently died. The pax had no idea Tapper had asked to use a Mk1 for the transit because he didn't trust ZD576. Odiham did know about the request and turned him down. That probably brings us closer to the truth over Air Marshal motive than anything else I have read.
What do others think?
The points you make do nothing to further either debate or the campaign. There is no evidence explaining precisely the motive of the senior air officers. If you have the evidence, rather than cynical general points of view, place them on this thread.
Many ask the question why these men and one woman were put on a mil. craft - it was SOP. The request for them to fly together came from one of the pax who subsequently died. The pax had no idea Tapper had asked to use a Mk1 for the transit because he didn't trust ZD576. Odiham did know about the request and turned him down. That probably brings us closer to the truth over Air Marshal motive than anything else I have read.
What do others think?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chinook
i think the point about the first two digits on the transponder being 77 are great big points!! do u know of any transponder code that starts with 77 cos i sure dont!!!! on subject of air marshals just why did they say it was negligence when ap said you couldnt say that without evidence. and as for putting all your int people in one aircraft well they say military intelligence is an oxymoron.