Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Atlantic Cowboy]

BEagle,

I really do take exception to being called a $hit-filtering civil serpent. I merely provided the ammunition for CAS, ACAS, Ministers and S of S to be able to refute the poorly written submission(in my view - done by a QC really?) from the MOK Group.

Cameron will be provided with a full brief should he become PM that will say exactly what briefs have always said - there is no reason to amend, change, review, alter or tamper with the findings of the original BOI.

Consider that in the fifteen years after the accident nothing has changed. Nothing will.

THe MOD has always been open to new information about the crash of ZD576 specifically but going on about airworthiness, incidents in other aircraft etc without being able to link it directly to ZD576 on the day of the accident is a complete waste of time.

Why don't you ask Wratten and Day if the evidence of the MOK Group convinces them that they made an error. They would equally have a right to challenge any attempt to amend the findings of the BOI. A BOI is not complete until the Reviewing Officers have appended their remarks.

[Chugalug2]

The pride you take in doing your job is apparent, Atlantic Cowboy. But just what is your job? Do you ever ask yourself that? You work for an organisation that isn't dealing with this problem because it is the problem. Flight Safety only works if it is the sole concern of those charged with ensuring its implementation. That is why Civil Aviation has a Regulator completely separated from the Operators. That is why Accident Investigation in Civil Aviation is separated from them both, because either could be the problem. In Military Aviation all three are one and the same and objectivity goes straight out of the window. The Banking Crisis was bad enough with Independent Regulation which was weak. How much greater the crisis if the Banks had been merely monitored by themselves? We'd all be queueing at the Soup Kitchens! That's just money, this is about lives. Eventually the cost in lives due to the failure of the MOD to provide for airworthiness will be known. As I have said above, it is sixty and counting by my reckoning. When I asked if you ask yourself about your job, I mean you and everyone in the MOD who has an input in maintaining the status quo. That status quo is the problem. You are the problem. Think on!

[tucumseh]

THe MOD has always been open to new information about the crash of ZD576 specifically but going on about airworthiness, incidents in other aircraft etc without being able to link it directly to ZD576 on the day of the accident is a complete waste of time.

The usual crass MoD stuff and nonsense. Only non-aircrew, non-engineer and someone wholly unfamiliar with airworthiness could make the statement that, if it can’t be directly linked to ZD576, then it is irrelevant.

The policy concerning trend failures and how they are managed has been deemed not applicable to the Mull accident, driving a bus through whole tracts of the airworthiness regulations.

Think of it. A number of aircraft in your particular fleet exhibit the same problems, each time being deemed flight safety critical. As a pilot you’d be apoplectic if the support staffs treated every case as “isolated”, failing to recognise a trend. It would be incompetence on a grand scale.

But what if the resources required to implement such a process had been systematically withdrawn over the previous 3 years, by senior RAF staffs? Where does the incompetence lie?


And, to answer a point made by Purdey/MoD earlier, what offence has been committed if those staffs were advised their actions would compromise airworthiness yet knowingly continued? Take your pick from Misconduct, Maladministration, Breach of Duty of Care amounting to Gross Negligence. And, if deaths result, Manslaughter by Gross Negligence.



Compound this with the fact that the organisation charged with preparing the CA Release recommendations had grounded their trials aircraft, and in their report made it clear the aircraft is still in development and not fit for service (8 months after it has been prematurely released).


AC, I’m afraid your admission that you breached the Civil Service Code says it all.

[Cows getting bigger]

Can anyone prove, with not doubt whatsoever, that a technical fault/malfunction brought about by a deliberate failure to comply with airworthiness standards did not contribute to the crash?

Thought not.

[John Purdey]

Chinook

BEAgle. Reflecting on your claim of CORPORATE HOMICIDE, it seems to me that you have a duty to report this to the police, who, of course, have a duty to follow up your accusation. (unless you think they are part of the 'stitch-up').
You would have to reveal your identity rather than hide behind the anonimity of PPrune, but in the interests of justice I'm sure you would agree that this is a small price to pay.
Do let us know how you get on.
JP

[Fitter2]

AC:

I really do take exception to being called a $hit-filtering civil serpent.

Understandable, but then

I merely provided the ammunition for CAS, ACAS, Ministers and S of S

why supply evidence to support the statement?

And if my brief failed to convince the HOL Committee, whereas the

poorly written submission(in my view - done by a QC really?) from the MOK Group

did, I would not be advertising the fact, from the reflection on either my competence, or the weakness of the MOD case.

[Chugalug2]

JP, BEAgle's post stated:

I'm still firmly of the opinion that any other verdict would have laid the MoD exposed to accusations of corporate homicide, the financial consequences of which would have been very expensive.

Seeing as the possibility of "State Murder" has been made before on this thread, and reacted to by you, as a possible variation of the authorised LZ visit theory (and please note that it was never, as you then suggested, my theory) your outrage that the MOD might be exposed to accusations of "corporate homicide" seems a little contrived. I certainly accuse the MOD of Corporate Manslaughter occasioned by its Gross Negligence. As to the old chestnut of user names I notice that you use one. If there is indeed need to report anything to any authority I very much doubt if a PPRuNe user name will satisfy them. BTW are we to be treated to a succession of your farewell posts only for you to pop up again rather like the Crazy Gang? Do you do "Underneath the Arches"? Perhaps on second thoughts you ought not to encourage requests!

[John Purdey]

Chinook

Chug.
There are some accusations that even a retired poster like me cannot ignore, ie 'Stiched up', 'State-Sponsored Murder' and 'Corporate Homicide'
Do you, as a matter of interest, support any of them?
JP

[Chugalug2]

JP, I support the term "Stitched Up", and as you didn't mention it a reminder that I also support the term "Corporate Manslaughter". So are you now a retired poster, like me? Or are you a "retired poster" that is forever going to be emerging from retirement?

[Atlantic Cowboy]

Tuc,

You really do need to concentrate on facts.

Just remind me (in round figures) how many RAF Chinooks HC 2 have been ploughed into the ground since ZD576. A round number - you don't have to be accurate. (Clue - it is a round number)

Boscombe Down use TRIALS aircraft for TRIALS. Perhaps you don't see a difference between these and those in service with a limitation on operational tasks.

So, if service aircraft are not airworthy no doubt all the crews will stop flying them forthwith?

Go read the Civil Service Code carefully.

A civil servant gets quite used to dealing with the general public who have little concept of the workings of administration of government.

Er, my memory recalls that negligence on the part of the pilots has previously been accepted. Then again that's probably imagination on my part or, a transgression of the Civil Service Code.

I must agree with John Purdey (well, I would, wouldn't I?) that this thread and the MOK Group have outlived their usefulness.

Nothing to show after 15 years and MOD is just wasting time and money humouring your requests for information/reviews etc. Cameron and his lot won't change anything.

About time to call it a day.

[Fitter2]

AC

I am sure that will the line you peddle to the next PM (or his appointed Min of Def).

The MOK group will no doubt also make their request, including the independant assessment of the HOL Committee.

You don't have to hang around here until after the next election, when it gets interesting again. Your brief then may have the same effect as it did to the HOL.

[walter kennedy]

Atlantic Cowboy
Unless they take their blinkers off, you are quite right.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant answers to straightforward questions that I have put forward regarding this flight. However, if a particular aspect is termed "OpSec", they get a warm feeling and shut up, leaving these guys hanging out to dry without exploring the (now) obvious.
The general public does not need proof without any doubt whatsoever as to what happened here, just on the balance of probabilities it looks like there has been a conspiracy of silence and that the obstacle to getting to the truth is the RAF as a body.
Certainly, the original pacifier of pilot error beyond any doubt whatsoever is no longer acceptable.
There was a chance through this forum for the circumstances to have been exposed gradually and gracefully; even if particular aspects had to be addressed with some discretion, the interested parties (eg the MOK group) could surely have done so behind closed doors with the MOD and at least somehow satisfied the public that such aspects were relevant or not; any initial omissions at the inquiries could have been accepted as oversights without the benefit of later analysis.
Without rigorous assessment of an event such as this, you could have a state thinking it could get away with murder – again.

[Chugalug2]

It seems quite clear that you haven't asked yourself about your job as I suggested, AC, indeed unless "directed" to do so I suspect that you steer clear of such activity as thinking. The points you make in your last post are so facile as to be risible. If it were not for the fact that we are literally talking here of a matter of life and death they would be amusing, but I do not find you or your bumptious manner in anyway amusing but terribly depressing. The thought that the Defence of the Realm is dependent on such careless and callous attitudes as you display to this thread fills me with despair. That our brave young men and women who risk and often lose their lives, or come home terribly maimed for life, have to depend on the likes of you and your "cleverness" for their equipment and necessities essential for their very survival induces cold anger in me. Have you ever served? Do you have any military commitment at all? I know that many CS do and I honour them for being willing to stand in harms way with our Armed Forces. Do you? Your contemptuous dismissal of "Cameron" speaks volumes. Not expecting to be around in this job by then are we? Expecting to move on? I can't be bothered to address the "points" that you make, maybe tuc can but I would understand completely if he treats them with the contempt that they deserve and ignores them and you completely. You are the sort that gives the Civil Service a bad name and perhaps those who share your profession might feel induced to add their thoughts about your posts.

[tucumseh]

Just remind me (in round figures) how many RAF Chinooks HC 2 have been ploughed into the ground since ZD576. A round number - you don't have to be accurate. (Clue - it is a round number)

Completely irrelevant. Read the MoD’s safety regs. Your argument is the same as that used by the RAF suppliers of the day, who held Ch. 5 (maintaining airworthiness) funding. "OK, we have a safety problem, aircrew have been injured, let's wait and see if it happens again before we investigate".

Boscombe Down use TRIALS aircraft for TRIALS. Perhaps you don't see a difference between these and those in service with a limitation on operational tasks.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of the Build Standard or the process which leads from TI to PI to, ultimately, CA Release trials. Or, the scope of what Boscombe does.

The aircraft Boscombe declined to fly in May/June 1994, on airworthiness grounds (as admitted by MoD), MUST have been to a defined build standard stated in the RTS. Otherwise the trials would not be representative. Any minor differences would be recorded and assessed for impact – and there would inevitably be such differences given the fleet was being converted from Mk1s. (Contrary to MoD’s assertion. It wasn’t you who advised Ingram ZD576 was a new build was it?). At the time, the PE Fleet was just another aircraft category, along with FAE, TAE, IR6 et al. That is, the RAF were given funding specifically to maintain them at the in use build standard.


Maintaining the Build Standard is crucial to managing such differences, which is why it is mandated. When you briefed Ministers did you advise them this mandated requirement had been ignored, thus rendering any Safety Case or Argument invalid?

Crucially, you completely miss the point that on the day of the crash Boscombe still regarded safety critical software to be in the development phase. How did you explain this extraordinary state of affairs when you briefed Ministers? How did you explain how a development aircraft came to be tasked to carry VVIPs? (Despite the stated concerns of the aircrew, who asked for a Mk1).

Go read the Civil Service Code carefully.

Impartiality. Say no more.

[BEagle]

Mr. Purdey, my opinion is just that. It is not necessarily correct.

It is only certain senior officers, it seems, who confuse opinion with fact. Beyond any doubt whatsoever.

[8-15fromOdium]

Fifth time of asking Atlantic Cowboy:

can you enlighten us if there was a separate document drawn up that recorded the airworthiness audit trail as part of the investigation and if such a document exists has it (to your knowledge) been made publicly available

Why is this important?

1. The content of such a document will answer many of the questions placed on this thread concerning STIs, FADEC, Contol Pallets etc etc.
2. If such a document does not exist it would indicate that the original investigation was less than thorough.

Now what is the answer Atlantic Cowboy?

[Airborne Aircrew]

8-15:

Now what is the answer Atlantic Cowboy?

You're not holding your breath I hope...

AC:

Nothing to show after 15 years and MOD is just wasting time and money humouring your requests for information/reviews etc. Cameron and his lot won't change anything.

Because, perhaps:-

I merely provided the ammunition for CAS, ACAS, Ministers and S of S to be able to refute the poorly written submission(in my view - done by a QC really?) from the MOK Group.

So, by your "standards", something that is "poorly written" has no merit whatsoever. In that vein the evidence from a victim of child molestation would, to you, carry no weight either because it was crayoned in barely legible English.

A civil servant gets quite used to dealing with the general public who have little concept of the workings of administration of government.

You're arrogance becomes you. It perfectly compliments your inability to see why some may see you as a "$hit-filtering civil serpent".

Perhaps you can come some way to redemption by answering the question 8-15 asks and answering it in an unequivocal and direct fashion.

[walter kennedy]

What a charade – asking each other questions that will not be answered and which are irrelevant anyway – while ignoring or not having the balls to ask nor answer basic questions on practice, procedures, and equipment. To an outsider there are so many such questions but which appear to be taboo with you lot – for example, the PLS of the time has been superceded by a much more secure system and other NATO countries describe its operational use openly in exercises, yet even for general interest no one here will touch on it with a barge pole – why is it still sensitive/classified 15 years on? - and why, when there is enough circumstantial data to at least warrant its consideration, be bound by restrictions on discussion of such equipment, restrictions dictated by authority which has so obviously wronged the aircrew involved and which also may have so wronged the British public? - is there not a point where the public interest surpasses the dictates of a particular state institution? - and perhaps demands you coming out of you own personal comfort zone?
Get some nuts.
Here's another one: the anomaly of the unusual squawk code found set; when I asked what was seen on secondary radar, there were denials that it would have been covered by secondary radar, several sites being described so as to show that no cover could have been expected WITHOUT MENTIONING Lowther Hill; when I did coverage simulation and found Lowther would have had LOS all the way across, gave examples of an a/c with smaller radar cross section having contact at greater range, and quoted an article by a respectable journo wherein someone reported having seen recordings of ZD576, no one here accepted that there would have been secondary coverage; the nature of the switches to select the SSR code are such that they are not readiliy displaced by impact (the loadie who authored “Chinook” had it that you couldn't move them with a sledge hammer) such that the explanation of their having been in the process of changing the SSR code seemed the only explanation BUT it sure looks like they were surprised by the closure with the terrain and so would not have been preoccupied with changing it. But no disclosure of what type of SSR codes would have been used at the time for exercises were offered to the debate. A European ATC authority described the UK code allocation at the time as being short of special codes and so used ones from the domestic allocation where there was no chance of confusion – 7760 (set in ZD576) had the normal meaning of a domestic flight in the Channel Isles (so no chance of confusion up in Scotland) and also, in several Euro regions, had the meaning “ground transponders, tests, trials” (obvious one to use if you were doing a trial with a system using a transponder on the ground like the PRC112 really, one may have thought, but the only feedback on this was to point out that it was only for a/c flight testing fixed navaids – oh, so that one's dead, I suppose I should assume).
Oh and the one that even Peter Seller's Clouseau character would look foolish overlooking – as the PLS of the time could give precise range and approx bearing, it was regarded operationally in other NATO countries as an accurate point navaid for extraction, etc and so was OK for “tactical approaches” - and ZD576 was using a tactical call sign.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, eh?

[Wwyvern]

Tucumseh's posting 5521 stirred my memory of accidents to three of British Airways Helicopters Ltd six BV 234 (civilianised Chinooks) 1983 - 1986. One was an engine fire, one was a control problem which caused the pilot to ditch and one was a catastophic desynchronisation of the twin rotors. Only the last one caused any fatalities (45 of the 47 pob). If anyone is interested, the AAIB Formal Reports are 7/84, 5/87 and 2/88.

[John Purdey]

Chinook

BEAgle. It was not an opinion; it was an assertion and a very serious allegation. Suggest you choose your words more carefully in future.
JP