Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a PPS, my MP for South Ribble felt unable to sign the EDM, but he did pass my letter to MoD. This is MoD's replyto me, signed by the Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP:
Quote - "We have been entirely open and honest about this tragic accident. You may recall that following the publication of the House of Lords Chinook Select Committee report, Geoff Hoon made a detailed statement on the crash on 22 July 2002 explaining why the Government had not been able to support the conclusions of the Select Committee (Official Report columns 689-698 refer). The same afternoon Lord Bach made a simi;lar statement in the House of Lords (Official Report columns 11-17 refer. There was insufficient time for a debate before the summer recess, but Lord Jauncey of Tulichettle, Chairman of the Select Committee, was eventually able to present the Committee's report to the Lords on 5 November 2002 and a fairly lengthy debate ensued (Official Report columns 635-705 refer).
You may be interested to know that according to the Manual of Flight Safety AP3207, which was in force at the time of the accident, "only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent". In the years since this accident, we have examined all the technical, legal and airmanship issues raised by those oppsed to the negligence finding but have found nothing that undermines thart finding. The two senior Reviewing Officers remain convinced that the required standard of proof was met and the Government retains every confidence in their decision" - end of Quote.
I have replied to my MP pointing (among other things) out that the phrase 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' is indeed the key issue, and that there remains a huge and growing groundswell of highly knowledgeable opinion that disagrees with the Government, MoD and the 2 Reviewing Officers in their assertion that the 'standard of proof was met'. There's only one 'standard' -the need to show 'absolute no doubt' - and as claimed by all those from the BoI President to the Select Committee, and the many inbetween, there is much unequivocal doubt.
As I've said before on this thread, my own gut feeling is that it's probable that the guys screwed up. But that is subjective irrelevance - and as a twice BoI President and staffer of several, there is IMHO quite insufficent evidence to meet the criteria for negligence as required by AP3207.
I guess there'll have to be a change of Def Minister, PM, and possibly Government before a reversal can be expected? Nonetheless, keep at them!
Quote - "We have been entirely open and honest about this tragic accident. You may recall that following the publication of the House of Lords Chinook Select Committee report, Geoff Hoon made a detailed statement on the crash on 22 July 2002 explaining why the Government had not been able to support the conclusions of the Select Committee (Official Report columns 689-698 refer). The same afternoon Lord Bach made a simi;lar statement in the House of Lords (Official Report columns 11-17 refer. There was insufficient time for a debate before the summer recess, but Lord Jauncey of Tulichettle, Chairman of the Select Committee, was eventually able to present the Committee's report to the Lords on 5 November 2002 and a fairly lengthy debate ensued (Official Report columns 635-705 refer).
You may be interested to know that according to the Manual of Flight Safety AP3207, which was in force at the time of the accident, "only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent". In the years since this accident, we have examined all the technical, legal and airmanship issues raised by those oppsed to the negligence finding but have found nothing that undermines thart finding. The two senior Reviewing Officers remain convinced that the required standard of proof was met and the Government retains every confidence in their decision" - end of Quote.
I have replied to my MP pointing (among other things) out that the phrase 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' is indeed the key issue, and that there remains a huge and growing groundswell of highly knowledgeable opinion that disagrees with the Government, MoD and the 2 Reviewing Officers in their assertion that the 'standard of proof was met'. There's only one 'standard' -the need to show 'absolute no doubt' - and as claimed by all those from the BoI President to the Select Committee, and the many inbetween, there is much unequivocal doubt.
As I've said before on this thread, my own gut feeling is that it's probable that the guys screwed up. But that is subjective irrelevance - and as a twice BoI President and staffer of several, there is IMHO quite insufficent evidence to meet the criteria for negligence as required by AP3207.
I guess there'll have to be a change of Def Minister, PM, and possibly Government before a reversal can be expected? Nonetheless, keep at them!
I quote a certain Miss Mandy Rice-Davies (Profumo affaire for those who weren't around in the early '60s):
"He would say that, wouldn't he?"
"He would say that, wouldn't he?"
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My MP (Nick Palmer, Labour Broxtowe) couldn't sign the EDM for some reason, which I can't remember and haven't got his email to hand. Anyway, he said he would write to the MOD instead and raise the issue with them.
I received a letter from him yesterday, enclosing a letter from Adam Ingram with the exact same wording as Smartmans message above.
No doubt everyone else will get the same exact response.
I received a letter from him yesterday, enclosing a letter from Adam Ingram with the exact same wording as Smartmans message above.
No doubt everyone else will get the same exact response.
Yes, how right you are.
I have also received the same brush-off letter from Ingram. File ref is D/Min(AF)/AI 0264/04/C dated 5 Feb 04 for anyone else who wishes to check whether they have also been sent a standard letter.
The sooner Bliar, Hoon, Ingram and the rest of the oily crew currently in power get the heave-ho the better. Particularly Hoon.
"The two senior Reviewing Officers remain convinced......" is written in the present tense. That must mean that they have been consulted recently.... Or does it mean something else in Bliar-speak?
2 officers convinced, thousands of others unconvinced.
Edited to add: Just had a reply from my MP. He has now signed the EDM. He is also going to write to Ingram to request clarification over the use of the present tense in his letter as I indicated above.....
Irritating sods of the world unite - keep up the pressure!
I have also received the same brush-off letter from Ingram. File ref is D/Min(AF)/AI 0264/04/C dated 5 Feb 04 for anyone else who wishes to check whether they have also been sent a standard letter.
The sooner Bliar, Hoon, Ingram and the rest of the oily crew currently in power get the heave-ho the better. Particularly Hoon.
"The two senior Reviewing Officers remain convinced......" is written in the present tense. That must mean that they have been consulted recently.... Or does it mean something else in Bliar-speak?
2 officers convinced, thousands of others unconvinced.
Edited to add: Just had a reply from my MP. He has now signed the EDM. He is also going to write to Ingram to request clarification over the use of the present tense in his letter as I indicated above.....
Irritating sods of the world unite - keep up the pressure!
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Feb 2004 at 21:32.
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
Thanks everyone for all your hard work. It is greatly appreciated by all involved in the campaign.
It is interesting that, once again, the MoD deem it appropriate to deal with the concerns surrounding this injustice by way of proforma reply.
It will be interesting to see what reply is given to your MP BEagle.
If the MoD are so willing to show their support the two, now retired, Air Marshal's opinions, why did they not go the whole hog and make one CAS before he left?
Perhaps they had absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that we would be irritating them all the more if they did
EDM currently stands at 114 - Fantastic!!
As always, my sincere thanks to you all for your support.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
It is interesting that, once again, the MoD deem it appropriate to deal with the concerns surrounding this injustice by way of proforma reply.
It will be interesting to see what reply is given to your MP BEagle.
If the MoD are so willing to show their support the two, now retired, Air Marshal's opinions, why did they not go the whole hog and make one CAS before he left?
Perhaps they had absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that we would be irritating them all the more if they did
EDM currently stands at 114 - Fantastic!!
As always, my sincere thanks to you all for your support.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
Excellent results so far Brian.
I've been waiting for the pace to quicken before again trying to engage my tory boy in the EDM. He has signed a few this session, but has refused to get involved in our cause thus far. Time for another nudge.
Interesting that that little toad Ingram now dishes out the blandishments previously handled by Mrs Bellchambers.
Where was he before defence. I seem to remember him greasily defending some other no hoper before he became Buff's stab vest.
I've been waiting for the pace to quicken before again trying to engage my tory boy in the EDM. He has signed a few this session, but has refused to get involved in our cause thus far. Time for another nudge.
Interesting that that little toad Ingram now dishes out the blandishments previously handled by Mrs Bellchambers.
Where was he before defence. I seem to remember him greasily defending some other no hoper before he became Buff's stab vest.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have today emailed my MP Sir Robert Smith (Hereditary Peerage, did nothing to warrant it), Lib Dem for West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine. His neighbouring Lib Dem in Gordon Const., Malcolm Bruce, has already signed. Will keep you posted on result.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Success!
Emailed my MP (Paul Goodman, Con) on Thursday via the House of Commons website (link a few posts earlier in the thread). Received a personal reply from him this morning which was very supportive. He had not been aware of the EDM but he has kindly committed to signing it. 
I have written again to thank him for his support. Keep at it everyone, it works!
I have written again to thank him for his support. Keep at it everyone, it works!
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 everyone,
thank you all very much. 121 signatures so far. Let's keep the pressure on.
More updates, as and when.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
thank you all very much. 121 signatures so far. Let's keep the pressure on.
More updates, as and when.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
The MP who withdrew his signature from EDM 371 is Frank Cook, Lab, Stockton North. However, looking at the list of EDM's that he has supported is an amendment, printed below, supported by 13 MP's. The names supporting the amendment do not seem, from a spot check, to be supporters of EDM 371.
For reference, here is the wording of EDM 371:
CHINOOK ZD576 07.01.04
Key/Robert
That this House endorses the Church of Scotland General Assembly 2003 Deliverance, which urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Ministry of Defence revisits the issue of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; notes that the General Assembly noted the findings of the Fatal Accident Inquiry held in Paisley, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and the House of Lords Select Committee, all of which rejected the finding of gross negligence by the RAF Board of Enquiry against Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook and of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee; supports the General Assembly's pastoral concern for all the families affected by the accident; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to overturn the verdict of gross negligence ascribed to the deceased pilots before 2nd June 2004, the 10th anniversary of the accident.
and here is the amendment:
EDM 371A1
CHINOOK ZD576 Amdt. line 9: 15.01.04
Lewis/Julian
Line 9, insert after 'accident': 'recognises that the Royal Air Force's rules on fatal accidents have subsequently been changed, such that the Chinook aircrew would not have been blamed after their deaths.'
The MP for Winchester, Mark Oaten, has not yet signed, despite his earlier agreement to do so, so an e-mail is on its way to him.
Regards chippy
The MP who withdrew his signature from EDM 371 is Frank Cook, Lab, Stockton North. However, looking at the list of EDM's that he has supported is an amendment, printed below, supported by 13 MP's. The names supporting the amendment do not seem, from a spot check, to be supporters of EDM 371.
For reference, here is the wording of EDM 371:
CHINOOK ZD576 07.01.04
Key/Robert
That this House endorses the Church of Scotland General Assembly 2003 Deliverance, which urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Ministry of Defence revisits the issue of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; notes that the General Assembly noted the findings of the Fatal Accident Inquiry held in Paisley, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and the House of Lords Select Committee, all of which rejected the finding of gross negligence by the RAF Board of Enquiry against Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook and of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee; supports the General Assembly's pastoral concern for all the families affected by the accident; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to overturn the verdict of gross negligence ascribed to the deceased pilots before 2nd June 2004, the 10th anniversary of the accident.
and here is the amendment:
EDM 371A1
CHINOOK ZD576 Amdt. line 9: 15.01.04
Lewis/Julian
Line 9, insert after 'accident': 'recognises that the Royal Air Force's rules on fatal accidents have subsequently been changed, such that the Chinook aircrew would not have been blamed after their deaths.'
The MP for Winchester, Mark Oaten, has not yet signed, despite his earlier agreement to do so, so an e-mail is on its way to him.
Regards chippy
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
Thanks Chippy.
Just to update everyone - the EDM now has 137 supporting signatures, and the amendment to the original EDM has 15 signatures.
This is a fantastic result, and combining the two totals, not far off the number of signatures for the previous EDM during the 2001/2002 session, which reached 170 signatures.
Quite astounding that there is still such depth of feeling after almost ten years!
The campaign thanks each and every one of you for your support.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just to update everyone - the EDM now has 137 supporting signatures, and the amendment to the original EDM has 15 signatures.
This is a fantastic result, and combining the two totals, not far off the number of signatures for the previous EDM during the 2001/2002 session, which reached 170 signatures.
Quite astounding that there is still such depth of feeling after almost ten years!
The campaign thanks each and every one of you for your support.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally got a response from my MP (Eric Pickles) who states 'As Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government' he is only permitted to sign certains EDMs and that he will check to see if 371 is on the 'approved' list.
Would have thought he could have checked that first! Will let you know what happens as/when/if he does so.
In the meantime, best wishes
H
Would have thought he could have checked that first! Will let you know what happens as/when/if he does so.
In the meantime, best wishes
H
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDM
A reply for Chippy!
The amendment to the EDM was tabled to make the subtle point about how unjust it is to leave Rick and Jonathan charged with gross negligence for a crash, when that crash directly resulted in the rules which convicvted them being changed. Does that make sense?
Great bunch of signatures on the EDM, and more to come.
adios
The amendment to the EDM was tabled to make the subtle point about how unjust it is to leave Rick and Jonathan charged with gross negligence for a crash, when that crash directly resulted in the rules which convicvted them being changed. Does that make sense?
Great bunch of signatures on the EDM, and more to come.
adios
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Emailed my MP. John Mann. He has replied saying that he has signed the EDM, but as yet his name has not appeared on the list. 
If it does, that will be 141 signatures.
If it does, that will be 141 signatures.
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
157, if you include the amendment Shy!!
Thank you all (again).
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thank you all (again).
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
I emailed John Mann again to inform him that his name was still not on the list. He replied to say that he HAD signed in January and didn't know why his name was missing.
He has now contacted the administrators who have rectified this.
Thanks, Mr Mann!
He has now contacted the administrators who have rectified this.
Thanks, Mr Mann!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will probably be my one and only message to this forum so here goes - Strike command lies without a shadow of doubt - from personal experience.
With regard to the C130 and SeaKing incident:-
The provision of three State of the art (for that time) Radars at Byron Heights, Mt Alice and Stanley was a complete waste of taxpayers money then?
From the elevated position of three main surveillance Radars it is difficult to imagine how two out of the max of 8-10 local flights (Bristows and milk runs) could be missed by all three Radars (range in excess of 250Nmiles). Knowing a bit about the positioning of the three Radars I would say that at least one of the Radars would have, depending on range and height obviously, had returns from the C130 at least! More likely is that both flights were seen at one time or another by at least two Radars - what about the controllers? If the Sea King was ship launched then the ship would have had recordings of voice traffic.
SOP for at least two of these Radars indicate that there would have been a good chance that the RACAL ICR64 voice recorders should have been recording all AGA voice traffic - I suppose the disclosure of these recordings at that time would not have been "in the public interest" funnily enough we are the "public" and it certainly interests us!.
The chinook flight:- Similarly the voice traffic of the NI Chinook flight in 1994 would probably have been recorded on RAF Bishopcourts recorders as well as those of certain ATC cells in NI and Scotland - (loudon hill, Prestwick) again would the release of such information be "in the public interest"? In fact the Type 93, classified as Remote Sensors, dotted round the UK at that time (Bishopscourt, Buchan, Bulmer Bridlignton and Hopton) had full recording capability with live data being passed back to the different UKADGE control centres! Believe me someone had (or has) that information.
Even if the primary Radar was down on any of these sites it does not preclude AGA voice recording!
Be aware the NATC software was seen to be freezing during developement - ask Bill Mansfield of Siemens Plessey Systems (now AMS)
With regard to the C130 and SeaKing incident:-
The provision of three State of the art (for that time) Radars at Byron Heights, Mt Alice and Stanley was a complete waste of taxpayers money then?
From the elevated position of three main surveillance Radars it is difficult to imagine how two out of the max of 8-10 local flights (Bristows and milk runs) could be missed by all three Radars (range in excess of 250Nmiles). Knowing a bit about the positioning of the three Radars I would say that at least one of the Radars would have, depending on range and height obviously, had returns from the C130 at least! More likely is that both flights were seen at one time or another by at least two Radars - what about the controllers? If the Sea King was ship launched then the ship would have had recordings of voice traffic.
SOP for at least two of these Radars indicate that there would have been a good chance that the RACAL ICR64 voice recorders should have been recording all AGA voice traffic - I suppose the disclosure of these recordings at that time would not have been "in the public interest" funnily enough we are the "public" and it certainly interests us!.
The chinook flight:- Similarly the voice traffic of the NI Chinook flight in 1994 would probably have been recorded on RAF Bishopcourts recorders as well as those of certain ATC cells in NI and Scotland - (loudon hill, Prestwick) again would the release of such information be "in the public interest"? In fact the Type 93, classified as Remote Sensors, dotted round the UK at that time (Bishopscourt, Buchan, Bulmer Bridlignton and Hopton) had full recording capability with live data being passed back to the different UKADGE control centres! Believe me someone had (or has) that information.
Even if the primary Radar was down on any of these sites it does not preclude AGA voice recording!
Be aware the NATC software was seen to be freezing during developement - ask Bill Mansfield of Siemens Plessey Systems (now AMS)
You know what is so very, very sad about this affair which we have all watched for so long? The reality of it is far, far deeper than the sordid outcome of the BOI (as Amended). It actually sums up the nature of Politics in the UK today.
Democracy and Logic? Let us not kid ourselves about the political institution we live under today. Notwithstanding the odd courageous (often backbench) MP, IMHE many of them are a bunch of self-indulgent parasites bent on self-preservation. And this sad saga is only but one example I have experienced of the "I'm all right (actually, I'm doing very nicely since you ask), Jack" attitude displayed by so many of the so-called honourable Members of the House.
.......... "MP (Eric Pickles) who states 'As Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government' he is only permitted to sign certain EDMs and that he will check to see if 371 is on the 'approved' list"........ Mmmmm, obviously something that came across the Baltic from the days of Stalin!!!
Still, my outlook probably explains why I am still a "Gash Shag" and will die a pauper! At least I sleep (and will die) with a clear conscience!!!!! Poor kiddies though; no fortune awaiting them upon my demise!
H 'n' H
PS IMHE - the "E" = Experience!
Democracy and Logic? Let us not kid ourselves about the political institution we live under today. Notwithstanding the odd courageous (often backbench) MP, IMHE many of them are a bunch of self-indulgent parasites bent on self-preservation. And this sad saga is only but one example I have experienced of the "I'm all right (actually, I'm doing very nicely since you ask), Jack" attitude displayed by so many of the so-called honourable Members of the House.
.......... "MP (Eric Pickles) who states 'As Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government' he is only permitted to sign certain EDMs and that he will check to see if 371 is on the 'approved' list"........ Mmmmm, obviously something that came across the Baltic from the days of Stalin!!!
Still, my outlook probably explains why I am still a "Gash Shag" and will die a pauper! At least I sleep (and will die) with a clear conscience!!!!! Poor kiddies though; no fortune awaiting them upon my demise!
H 'n' H
PS IMHE - the "E" = Experience!