Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Release to Service
Turnbull,
Assuming that there were no changes in the RAF RTS, which we are still waiting for, the CA RTS at AL1 (Mar 94) said:
Section Q para 1.1
Instrument flight by day anmd night is permitted within the CGI serviceable and unservicable flight envelopes shown in Figs 1 and 2 with the bank angle limited by the CGI subject to a maximum of 30 degrees.
There were then various other restrictions re minimum speeds, AFCS etc which can be sent to you by PM if you want them.
On icing conditions Section R para 3 says;
Pending resolution of the effect of engine inlet screen blockage on engine surge margins operations in cloud or fog (visbility less than 1000M) or rain are prohited in ambient temperatures colder than PLUS 4C (Indicated)
Para 4 says
Flight in freezing rain is prohibited
Again there is a whole pile more information re operations in snow and use of anti-icing systems etc.
As I recall the forecast temperature for the top of the Mull at the time they took off was below +4C - again confirming, with Tapper's specfic qusetion on breaking the icing limits, that this crew had no intention of doing a cruise climb over the Mull (especially having selected a different waypoint!) and further destroying the whole credibility of the BOI's conclusions.
Assuming that there were no changes in the RAF RTS, which we are still waiting for, the CA RTS at AL1 (Mar 94) said:
Section Q para 1.1
Instrument flight by day anmd night is permitted within the CGI serviceable and unservicable flight envelopes shown in Figs 1 and 2 with the bank angle limited by the CGI subject to a maximum of 30 degrees.
There were then various other restrictions re minimum speeds, AFCS etc which can be sent to you by PM if you want them.
On icing conditions Section R para 3 says;
Pending resolution of the effect of engine inlet screen blockage on engine surge margins operations in cloud or fog (visbility less than 1000M) or rain are prohited in ambient temperatures colder than PLUS 4C (Indicated)
Para 4 says
Flight in freezing rain is prohibited
Again there is a whole pile more information re operations in snow and use of anti-icing systems etc.
As I recall the forecast temperature for the top of the Mull at the time they took off was below +4C - again confirming, with Tapper's specfic qusetion on breaking the icing limits, that this crew had no intention of doing a cruise climb over the Mull (especially having selected a different waypoint!) and further destroying the whole credibility of the BOI's conclusions.
Just a numbered other
cazatou:
I don't agree with you. I have never considerred the return journey. It is irelevent, and having seen the weather on the way out, may have influenced a decision to remain in Scotland.
The flight was quite properly planned VFR. The alternative would be to have turned back. What actually happened we will never know.
The 4 degC level, as far as the crew could calculate from the known freezing level, was 2500ft ASL.
Medium level was NOT an option.
I am somewhat confused by my inference that you are mixing up the terms 'imply' and 'infer'.
I knew IK very well, and have no reason to imply any critisism of him, nor to infer that you may have done.
What crew briefing was carried out, we will never know, as those found guilty were unavailable to give their crucial evidence.
The aspect that Ark Royal has consistantly refused to acknowledge is that the return flight was planned at medium level
The flight was quite properly planned VFR. The alternative would be to have turned back. What actually happened we will never know.
The 4 degC level, as far as the crew could calculate from the known freezing level, was 2500ft ASL.
Medium level was NOT an option.
I trust you are not inferring any criticism of the evidence of the RN Officer who was the other Chinook Captain of the Detatchment.
I knew IK very well, and have no reason to imply any critisism of him, nor to infer that you may have done.
What crew briefing was carried out, we will never know, as those found guilty were unavailable to give their crucial evidence.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still doesnt make sense to me.... They were in cloud below thier safety altitude and they flew the aircraft into the ground. That sounds like pi$$ poor aviation to me.....but not gross negligence.
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 you agree, the Southside. The gross negligence verdict should be removed.
The bottom line of this whole issue is the RAF's own rule in place at the time of the accident. In order to find deceased aircrew guilty of negligence, there has to be Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Irrespective of which particular aspect of the matter you focus on (and there are plenty that fit into the 'don't know what happened' bracket), the simple fact is that this required burden of proof has not been achieved satisfactorily. Why the Reviewing Officers ignored their own law, and why the MoD continue to support this, should be the question on everyone's lips.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The bottom line of this whole issue is the RAF's own rule in place at the time of the accident. In order to find deceased aircrew guilty of negligence, there has to be Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Irrespective of which particular aspect of the matter you focus on (and there are plenty that fit into the 'don't know what happened' bracket), the simple fact is that this required burden of proof has not been achieved satisfactorily. Why the Reviewing Officers ignored their own law, and why the MoD continue to support this, should be the question on everyone's lips.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree Brian. I think most people know my stand on this and it is to say that I think the cew were foolish, unprofessional and misguided. However, I have been flying a long long time and I dare say that in the past I have been foolish and misguided but thankfully and for the grace of god I got away with it. Sadly, these guys didnt. But, they were NOT grossly negligent.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southside........please justify your comments.........."they were in cloud below their safety altitude" Prove it!!
"they were foolish, unprofessional and misguided" Prove it !!
Were you there, were you an eye witness, were you in the minds of the two pilots ??????
NOONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON THAT FATEFUL DAY!!
Lets give these professional pilots the benefit of the doubt.
"they were foolish, unprofessional and misguided" Prove it !!
Were you there, were you an eye witness, were you in the minds of the two pilots ??????
NOONE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON THAT FATEFUL DAY!!
Lets give these professional pilots the benefit of the doubt.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircrew Error versus Technical Malfunction
Southside,
Since you clearly believe that this was an aircrew error accident albeit not Gross Negligence, I would welcome your comments on why you reject all the eveidence, including Boscombe Down, Stn Cdr Odiham and a string of other experts both operators and engineers, that points to at least an equal chance of this accident being the direct or distraction result of a technical malfunction. on an aircraft with a wide range of airworthiness problems. An aircraft fleet where we now know that Boscombe Down, based on in-service engine failure incidents and not just their own TP issues, stated that we now consider the consequences of the risks and probability of an occurrence to be UNACCEPTABLE. (my bold)
I do not think that you have anything factual or new on which to base your comment that they were "foolish, unprofessional and misguided", any more than it turns out that the Reviewing Officers had real evidence to support their damning Gross Negligence verdict. However, I would be very glad to hear it if you have. Remember what the House of Lords said in their conclusions:
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.
I suggest that you are falling into the same trap with your comments.
Since you clearly believe that this was an aircrew error accident albeit not Gross Negligence, I would welcome your comments on why you reject all the eveidence, including Boscombe Down, Stn Cdr Odiham and a string of other experts both operators and engineers, that points to at least an equal chance of this accident being the direct or distraction result of a technical malfunction. on an aircraft with a wide range of airworthiness problems. An aircraft fleet where we now know that Boscombe Down, based on in-service engine failure incidents and not just their own TP issues, stated that we now consider the consequences of the risks and probability of an occurrence to be UNACCEPTABLE. (my bold)
I do not think that you have anything factual or new on which to base your comment that they were "foolish, unprofessional and misguided", any more than it turns out that the Reviewing Officers had real evidence to support their damning Gross Negligence verdict. However, I would be very glad to hear it if you have. Remember what the House of Lords said in their conclusions:
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.
I suggest that you are falling into the same trap with your comments.
John B, Kennyr et al,
Sadly Southside enjoys his little wind-ups - a leisurely search through his past post history will show that he derives great pleasure from the sport of Crab-baiting. He is often successful in getting a response. I would have hoped he could recognise this thread as being above the nar-nar banter level but the evidence shows otherwise.
Best regard him in the same category as Walter in terms of the value he brings to the debate, eh?
Sadly Southside enjoys his little wind-ups - a leisurely search through his past post history will show that he derives great pleasure from the sport of Crab-baiting. He is often successful in getting a response. I would have hoped he could recognise this thread as being above the nar-nar banter level but the evidence shows otherwise.
Best regard him in the same category as Walter in terms of the value he brings to the debate, eh?
Brian,
My MP, David Cameron, has forwarded the response he received after writing to Dr John Reid on my behalf:
"Dear David,
Thank you for your two recent letters () enclosing corrspondence from your constituent (BEagle), about the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre.
I note that (BEagle) is advocating a position not dissimilar to that which has been adopted by some of your colleagues; having the available evidence reviewed by a senior judicial figure. I regret that I am unable to agree to such a suggestion.
This, as was stated by Geoff Hoon in his Statement to the House on 22 July 2002, has been "the most extensively examined air crash in the history of British military aviation". The original Board, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the HCDC and the House of Lords Select Committee have all studied the same evidence. Each new Government and Ministerial team since the accident has also had the opportunity to review the case. Indeed, when the Labour Government came into office in 1997, it was our opinion that an injustice had been done which we could put right. Despite having looked closely at the case then, and again when Geoff became Defence Secretary, we were not able to justify overturning the findings. My opinion continues to be that the finding should remain undisturbed.
Kind Regards,
John Reid"
I have replied asking Mr Cameron:
1. To ask Dr John Reid specifically why he is unable to agree to the suggestion that an impartial review should be conducted by a senior judicial figure.
2. To ask Dr John Reid whether he is aware that, of the signatories to EDM 1111 asking for such a review, currently no less than 25.5% are from his own Labour party. And, as a consequence, whether Dr John Reid accepts that 'his opinion' does not accurately represent the current government's view.
My MP, David Cameron, has forwarded the response he received after writing to Dr John Reid on my behalf:
"Dear David,
Thank you for your two recent letters () enclosing corrspondence from your constituent (BEagle), about the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre.
I note that (BEagle) is advocating a position not dissimilar to that which has been adopted by some of your colleagues; having the available evidence reviewed by a senior judicial figure. I regret that I am unable to agree to such a suggestion.
This, as was stated by Geoff Hoon in his Statement to the House on 22 July 2002, has been "the most extensively examined air crash in the history of British military aviation". The original Board, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the HCDC and the House of Lords Select Committee have all studied the same evidence. Each new Government and Ministerial team since the accident has also had the opportunity to review the case. Indeed, when the Labour Government came into office in 1997, it was our opinion that an injustice had been done which we could put right. Despite having looked closely at the case then, and again when Geoff became Defence Secretary, we were not able to justify overturning the findings. My opinion continues to be that the finding should remain undisturbed.
Kind Regards,
John Reid"
I have replied asking Mr Cameron:
1. To ask Dr John Reid specifically why he is unable to agree to the suggestion that an impartial review should be conducted by a senior judicial figure.
2. To ask Dr John Reid whether he is aware that, of the signatories to EDM 1111 asking for such a review, currently no less than 25.5% are from his own Labour party. And, as a consequence, whether Dr John Reid accepts that 'his opinion' does not accurately represent the current government's view.
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Jan 2006 at 19:07.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BEagle,
many thanks for the update. Quite interesting that Mr Reid has adopted the point blank refusal stance.
If you haven't posted your letter, you may like to point out to the learned Minister that the eminent bodies he refers to in his reply - the BoI, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee all found against the findings of the Reviewing Officers.
His argument against going for the High Court Judge's review is as flimsy and illogical as his Department's defence of an indefensable verdict.
My thanks, as always for your support.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
many thanks for the update. Quite interesting that Mr Reid has adopted the point blank refusal stance.
If you haven't posted your letter, you may like to point out to the learned Minister that the eminent bodies he refers to in his reply - the BoI, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee all found against the findings of the Reviewing Officers.
His argument against going for the High Court Judge's review is as flimsy and illogical as his Department's defence of an indefensable verdict.
My thanks, as always for your support.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Also, ask what evidence he has been shown, since Labour came to office in 1997, which has caused him to change his opinion that "an injustice had been done that could be reversed". Is he saying that there is other evidence that was not shown to the original BoI, has not been shown to the other Inquiries in the intervening years, and which he is not about to share with us now? That seems to be a possible inference to be drawn from what he said.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
Brian
You and I have been corresponding about my attempts to get my MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold), to sign the EDMs. His first reaction was to say that he doesn’t do EDMs, because there are too many of them, and anyway he’s now on the front bench and can’t get involved except in matters of official Tory policy. He had, however, written to the Minister of State, Adam Ingram, on behalf of another constituent Chris Murphy, and received the standard guff about ‘confidence in the reviewing officers’ and the usual offer to review the position should any compelling new factual evidence appear, etc etc. Geoffrey C-B seems to have accepted the reply, and had not pursued the matter further.
With your kind help, I have persevered and have now received this from him:
I agree with you that there are doubts in many quarters about this verdict. Moreover the Conservative Defence Team has expressed its reservations about the judgement, in conjunction with the campaign led by my colleagues David Davis and James Arbuthnot.
In your letter you ask for me to suggest the best way to hold the Government to account over this issue. I believe that my colleagues’ campaign, as well as the constant scrutiny of the Conservative Defence specialists is the answer. I do understand the importance of this issue, and I am sure their expert work will carry the day.
I also agree with you that the Government’s response is not entirely satisfactory - responses from ths Labour Government very rarely are! In contrast to the Government’s approach, I would like to assure you that I will offer James Arbuthnot my strong support in his dedicated campaign.
This is at least a step forward - but I think that I will press him on the EDM stuff, since he hasn’t answered my arguments on that score - and also perhaps refer to the response from John Reid to Beagle, pointing out the apparent anomaly suggested by Ginseng.
It’s a long, slow business......
But we're not giving up, are we!
With your kind help, I have persevered and have now received this from him:
I agree with you that there are doubts in many quarters about this verdict. Moreover the Conservative Defence Team has expressed its reservations about the judgement, in conjunction with the campaign led by my colleagues David Davis and James Arbuthnot.
In your letter you ask for me to suggest the best way to hold the Government to account over this issue. I believe that my colleagues’ campaign, as well as the constant scrutiny of the Conservative Defence specialists is the answer. I do understand the importance of this issue, and I am sure their expert work will carry the day.
I also agree with you that the Government’s response is not entirely satisfactory - responses from ths Labour Government very rarely are! In contrast to the Government’s approach, I would like to assure you that I will offer James Arbuthnot my strong support in his dedicated campaign.
This is at least a step forward - but I think that I will press him on the EDM stuff, since he hasn’t answered my arguments on that score - and also perhaps refer to the response from John Reid to Beagle, pointing out the apparent anomaly suggested by Ginseng.
It’s a long, slow business......
But we're not giving up, are we!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
Firstly my apologies for the tardy reply but when you live down here you get visitors at all times of the year; particularly as Budget Airline fares are so low in winter.
I believe you are well aware that the outbrief did not happen because the Duty Auth was involved in the briefing of a Puma formation.
Firstly my apologies for the tardy reply but when you live down here you get visitors at all times of the year; particularly as Budget Airline fares are so low in winter.
I believe you are well aware that the outbrief did not happen because the Duty Auth was involved in the briefing of a Puma formation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
Thank you. You believe correctly.
So we agree that, not only was the lack of an outbrief not relevant to the accident (though in fairness, it probably would have revealed additional, possibly important, information)
But crucially, it would be unfair to imply any criticism of the crew for their inability to conduct an outbrief. It was not their fault!
So, let's move on to more important issues???
Thank you. You believe correctly.
So we agree that, not only was the lack of an outbrief not relevant to the accident (though in fairness, it probably would have revealed additional, possibly important, information)
But crucially, it would be unfair to imply any criticism of the crew for their inability to conduct an outbrief. It was not their fault!
So, let's move on to more important issues???
Hi Brian.
I have sent another e-mail to my MP Jane Kennedy ( Liverpool Wavertree ) just to remind her that I have written a month ago. I do intend to become that irritating little git, so beloved of MPs. I will remind her of my presence at regular intervals until she deigns to reply to me. I have stated before that she is payroll member of the Government so her support will be non exisitant but one keeps trying, and I can be very trying.
Continue the work, justice will arrive one day unfortunately many years too late.
Regards
air pig.
I have sent another e-mail to my MP Jane Kennedy ( Liverpool Wavertree ) just to remind her that I have written a month ago. I do intend to become that irritating little git, so beloved of MPs. I will remind her of my presence at regular intervals until she deigns to reply to me. I have stated before that she is payroll member of the Government so her support will be non exisitant but one keeps trying, and I can be very trying.
Continue the work, justice will arrive one day unfortunately many years too late.
Regards
air pig.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on ya, air pig. I still believe that we should descend on the Houses of Parliament en-masse and make a real nuisence of ourselves. Get some air-time on TV. Get right in their faces.
We are never going to persuade these idiots at MOD to reopen the inquiry by writing to MP's. I am still awaiting a reply to my last letter from His Majesty Tony Bliar ( or one of his toadies).
P.S. I am not an activist, just mightily pi**ed off with the time this campaign is taking to try and get through to these pig-headed loafers in Parliament!!!
We are never going to persuade these idiots at MOD to reopen the inquiry by writing to MP's. I am still awaiting a reply to my last letter from His Majesty Tony Bliar ( or one of his toadies).
P.S. I am not an activist, just mightily pi**ed off with the time this campaign is taking to try and get through to these pig-headed loafers in Parliament!!!
Hi Kenyr
He was my next port of call. I feel a little more irritation coming on. When having a demo don't forget to tell that other Bliar you are cooming or we will all be enjoying a night in the pokey and breakfast in bed at the Met Pol hotel. Take the all day breakfast as the best choice, according to my sources.
regards
air pig
He was my next port of call. I feel a little more irritation coming on. When having a demo don't forget to tell that other Bliar you are cooming or we will all be enjoying a night in the pokey and breakfast in bed at the Met Pol hotel. Take the all day breakfast as the best choice, according to my sources.
regards
air pig
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
as always, very many thanks for your continued support.
Well done Airsound - a promising response from your chap. Keep him on the ropes with regards signing the EDMs.
EDM 651 currently stands at 178 signatures (Sponsored by David Cameron)
EDM 1111 currently stands at 51 signatures
Interesting that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the accident - Malcolm Rifkind has signed both!
Thanks also KennyR and Air Pig.
What is also worth doing is, apart from writing to Messrs Blair and Reid, also write to David Cameron (and whoever takes over from Charles Kennedy) to not only ask for their support, but to let them know how much support there is out there. If they know how much of an issue this injustice is, they may take more of an interest.
As always, updates as and when.
My best,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
as always, very many thanks for your continued support.
Well done Airsound - a promising response from your chap. Keep him on the ropes with regards signing the EDMs.
EDM 651 currently stands at 178 signatures (Sponsored by David Cameron)
EDM 1111 currently stands at 51 signatures
Interesting that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the accident - Malcolm Rifkind has signed both!
Thanks also KennyR and Air Pig.
What is also worth doing is, apart from writing to Messrs Blair and Reid, also write to David Cameron (and whoever takes over from Charles Kennedy) to not only ask for their support, but to let them know how much support there is out there. If they know how much of an issue this injustice is, they may take more of an interest.
As always, updates as and when.
My best,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook