Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe now is a good time for reflection? There are 29 families who will not have the perfect Xmas tomorrow. Regardless of our individual stances here, surely we can all agree that those families deserve incontrovertible justice. For as long as our arguments continue, that will never happen.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
JB..... and given your background I am surprised at some of the company you keep. Meanwhile, you are talking about alleged failures in the heirachy, on which, being long gone, I cannot comment. I am talking about negligence at the sharp end, defined in my book as 'taking (or in this case) failing to take, an action which a reasonable person given the same circumstances would take (in this case turning away and up the coast, rather than flying over the Mull). We shall never see a meeting of minds here, but have a good Christmas anyway. JP.
JB..... and given your background I am surprised at some of the company you keep. Meanwhile, you are talking about alleged failures in the heirachy, on which, being long gone, I cannot comment.
As John Blakeley posts under his own name and his former rank is, I believe, widely known, I find it reassuring he keeps the company he does.
You, John Purdey, on the other hand, take gratification it denigrating a fellow officer and keep the company of those who regard the regulations as something senior staffs can ignore, content in the knowledge you can always blame the consequences on junior officers.
I may be of a different Service, but I can still spot the difference between a leader and someone who blindly follows the party line while not caring one iota for duty of care. I'm sure the Air Staffs, past and present, are so proud of you. I'm also sure there are those who cringe at your posts and thank God you are no longer responsible for a major component of airworthiness.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't add anything as we already knew
Merry Xmas to all.
ND
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
In his review of the BoI, AM Wratten used the following words: "without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
How does this statement fit with Wratten's conclusion, "beyond any doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were negligent?
In his review of the BoI, AM Wratten used the following words: "without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
How does this statement fit with Wratten's conclusion, "beyond any doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were negligent?
Last edited by meadowbank; 24th Dec 2010 at 19:43. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Company I Keep
JP,
The company I keep has been fighting to right a gross injustice for 15 years - it includes former Ministers (even a former PM), senior politicians of all parties and professional military and civilian aircrew and engineers - some of whom have investigated this accident and the serious flaws in its investigation to a much greater depth than I have. Thus I am quite happy to be associated with it, in my own name. Sadly, it has taken the Nimrod accident and the Haddon-Cave Inquiry for the MOD and RAF to realise where their (mis) management of airworthiness standards and procedures has taken them over the last 20 years - something the Mull Group and other pressure groups campaigning to improve airworthiness managment and standards and the "fitness for purpose" of RAF aircraft had been pointing out, with some success, eg in MOD finally fitting ESF for Hercules, long before H-C "made it official".
JB
The company I keep has been fighting to right a gross injustice for 15 years - it includes former Ministers (even a former PM), senior politicians of all parties and professional military and civilian aircrew and engineers - some of whom have investigated this accident and the serious flaws in its investigation to a much greater depth than I have. Thus I am quite happy to be associated with it, in my own name. Sadly, it has taken the Nimrod accident and the Haddon-Cave Inquiry for the MOD and RAF to realise where their (mis) management of airworthiness standards and procedures has taken them over the last 20 years - something the Mull Group and other pressure groups campaigning to improve airworthiness managment and standards and the "fitness for purpose" of RAF aircraft had been pointing out, with some success, eg in MOD finally fitting ESF for Hercules, long before H-C "made it official".
JB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something?
Happy Christmas all.
Nigel
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JP's 'book'
'taking (or in this case) failing to take, an action which a reasonable person given the same circumstances would take'
JP's comment above seems to indicate that in his estimation that terrible event on Mull happened as the 2 pilots were not 'reasonable persons' but were 'unreasonable persons'.
I can only deduce from that comment that JP must think that the RAF pilot selection, training and monitoring systems were so poor that they would allow 'unreasonable persons' to attain the positions of highly specialised SH and SF RAF pilots .
I can only deduce from that comment that JP must think that the RAF pilot selection, training and monitoring systems were so poor that they would allow 'unreasonable persons' to attain the positions of highly specialised SH and SF RAF pilots .
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What many contributors to this thread ignore is that when the BOI arrived at HQ1Gp for "Staffing" it already contained a finding of negligence from the Stn Cdr at RAF Odiham who stated in his remarks that Flt Lt Tapper, as the Aircraft Captain, had a Duty of Care in the conduct of the flight and that he had failed in that Duty.
My Dictionary defines negligence as " Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require".
AOC 1Gp extended that verdict to include Flt Lt Cook who was the Handling Pilot.
My Dictionary defines negligence as " Omission of duty, especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require".
AOC 1Gp extended that verdict to include Flt Lt Cook who was the Handling Pilot.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
already contained a finding of negligence
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does it say negligence?
Caz,
I see that like JP you have reverted to going over old ground - is this the new policy for "defending the indefensible"? As you well know the published remarks of the Stn Cdr Odiham in the BoI do not contain the word negligence at any point, and even his final "reluctant" conclusion on the "failure" of the pilots to ensure the safety of their passengers leaves open the question of why that failure might have occurred (and of course we now know more than he would have done then as to the real airworthiness and fitness for purpose issues of the time, and that they were not just "mitigating circumstances"). What the comments do show is a massive "disconnect" between the first 4 paragraphs, which basically "throw out" many of the BoI's conclusions, and the last two paragraphs, and you would need to be a member of the RAF's equivalent of the "Flat Earth Society" not to notice both this and the Stn Cdr's very carefully chosen words to conform to what in my opinion had by then clearly become a policy decision to find the pilots "guilty". Do you remember the AOCinC's memo of 15 Feb 1995 requiring the allocation of blame? The Stn Cdr's comments are dated 3 March 1995, which seems a bit late for all the staffing needed for the AOCinC to be able to publish his remarks by 3 April 1995 if this was the first time round don't you think?
Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.
JB
I see that like JP you have reverted to going over old ground - is this the new policy for "defending the indefensible"? As you well know the published remarks of the Stn Cdr Odiham in the BoI do not contain the word negligence at any point, and even his final "reluctant" conclusion on the "failure" of the pilots to ensure the safety of their passengers leaves open the question of why that failure might have occurred (and of course we now know more than he would have done then as to the real airworthiness and fitness for purpose issues of the time, and that they were not just "mitigating circumstances"). What the comments do show is a massive "disconnect" between the first 4 paragraphs, which basically "throw out" many of the BoI's conclusions, and the last two paragraphs, and you would need to be a member of the RAF's equivalent of the "Flat Earth Society" not to notice both this and the Stn Cdr's very carefully chosen words to conform to what in my opinion had by then clearly become a policy decision to find the pilots "guilty". Do you remember the AOCinC's memo of 15 Feb 1995 requiring the allocation of blame? The Stn Cdr's comments are dated 3 March 1995, which seems a bit late for all the staffing needed for the AOCinC to be able to publish his remarks by 3 April 1995 if this was the first time round don't you think?
Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.
JB
kz2:
John Blakely (who posts under his real name):
Someone is telling porkies. I know who my money is on........
BOI arrived at HQ1Gp for "Staffing" it already contained a finding of negligence from the Stn Cdr at RAF Odiham
the published remarks of the Stn Cdr Odiham in the BoI do not contain the word negligence at any point, and even his final "reluctant" conclusion on the "failure" of the pilots to ensure the safety of their passengers leaves open the question of why that failure might have occurred
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
AOC 1Gp extended that verdict to include Flt Lt Cook who was the Handling Pilot.
cazatou,
As usual, instead of answering the questions you are asked, you try to divert attention in some obscure way to someone else.
Why not deal with the issue as requested. If you can't, then say so.
As usual, instead of answering the questions you are asked, you try to divert attention in some obscure way to someone else.
Do you remember the AOCinC's memo of 15 Feb 1995 requiring the allocation of blame? The Stn Cdr's comments are dated 3 March 1995, which seems a bit late for all the staffing needed for the AOCinC to be able to publish his remarks by 3 April 1995 if this was the first time round don't you think?
Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.
Indeed, I have heard it suggested that the Stn Cdr Odiham was "invited" to re-consider his original remarks - if you saw the original comments when they came to 1Gp for BoI staffing you can, no doubt, confirm whether this was the case. If it was perhaps you could also enlighten this forum as to what the first version said.
