Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbies B
CFIT? Given the limited evidence is as good a guess as any.
As is Technical Malfunction and Aircrew Error.
So no, I don't agree with you, because I have no idea which of the above is correct.
CFIT? Given the limited evidence is as good a guess as any.
As is Technical Malfunction and Aircrew Error.
So no, I don't agree with you, because I have no idea which of the above is correct.
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,
firstly, I have to apologise as this is a quick post as I have to be somewhere else in about 15 minutes (not the pub, sadly).
Barbie - there was no back slapping. Just a sense of Justice done and relief for the families who have carried this burden for far too long.
Thank you for your kind comments, but I am one of a number of people who have worked hard for today. Truly humbling to get mentioned by James Arbuthnot. I will admit to being satisfied with my contribution.
In this brief post, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the Cook and Tapper family for allowing me to help them on this long, difficult journey. You are honourable, decent people and it has been a privilege to be there for you. We have friendships that will last a lifetime.
I should also like to thank all at PPRuNe for allowing us so much bandwidth over the years. Your contribution can not be underestimated.
I am delighted for Rick and Jon and I hope that they are resting in peace finally. I also hope that today's decision allows the other 27 families to put this finally behind them.
In respect of the Air Marshals, I recall Wratten stating at some point that with Rank comes great responsibility. Step up Mr Wratten and take responsibility. You have been found wanting. Feel free to invite your colleage along as well.
Sorry it's a quick post.
My sincere thanks to everyone who has been instrumental, both in action as well as support, in the return of the reputations of two fine young aviators.
Regards all,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
firstly, I have to apologise as this is a quick post as I have to be somewhere else in about 15 minutes (not the pub, sadly).
Barbie - there was no back slapping. Just a sense of Justice done and relief for the families who have carried this burden for far too long.
Thank you for your kind comments, but I am one of a number of people who have worked hard for today. Truly humbling to get mentioned by James Arbuthnot. I will admit to being satisfied with my contribution.
In this brief post, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the Cook and Tapper family for allowing me to help them on this long, difficult journey. You are honourable, decent people and it has been a privilege to be there for you. We have friendships that will last a lifetime.
I should also like to thank all at PPRuNe for allowing us so much bandwidth over the years. Your contribution can not be underestimated.
I am delighted for Rick and Jon and I hope that they are resting in peace finally. I also hope that today's decision allows the other 27 families to put this finally behind them.
In respect of the Air Marshals, I recall Wratten stating at some point that with Rank comes great responsibility. Step up Mr Wratten and take responsibility. You have been found wanting. Feel free to invite your colleage along as well.
Sorry it's a quick post.
My sincere thanks to everyone who has been instrumental, both in action as well as support, in the return of the reputations of two fine young aviators.
Regards all,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always knew the day would come when both pilots would be cleared -it must come as great news to the families. Much appreciation and thanks is owed to the efforts of many contributors on this thread. Well done to you all!!
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired judge Lord Philip, sitting in private along with a panel of three Scottish politicians, has spent nine months reviewing the accident.
He concluded that: "Because of the limited amount of evidence available, the investigating board were unable to determine the cause of the accident, and so concluded that it was impossible to find that the pilots had been negligent to any degree.
He concluded that: "Because of the limited amount of evidence available, the investigating board were unable to determine the cause of the accident, and so concluded that it was impossible to find that the pilots had been negligent to any degree.
But I agree great result for justice.
As an aside is there any update on the air traffic controller debacle?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want to sympathise with the families of the two pilots, I can only imagine the relief and the tears tonight. I myself am the father of a member of Ground Crew on the Tornado fleet and can imagine the satisfaction but also the anger and disgust that they must feel towards the system that denigrated the memory of their sons,brother and allowed an injustice to fester for so long.
They must regard Wratten and Day as two of the most arrogant and incompetent clowns the RAF has ever produced. I doubt those two will do any other than shrug their shoulders though. As for the inactions by subsequent and many Defence Secretaries, well mostly Labour, which says it all really.
I`m sure tonight they will swell with pride at the memory of two fine young men who died with honour and the respect of so many. Now perhaps they can Rest in Peace...they deserve to..
Oh yes to BarbiesBoyfriend a word of advice, if you have nothing intelligent to say its often better to keep quiet.....please do
They must regard Wratten and Day as two of the most arrogant and incompetent clowns the RAF has ever produced. I doubt those two will do any other than shrug their shoulders though. As for the inactions by subsequent and many Defence Secretaries, well mostly Labour, which says it all really.
I`m sure tonight they will swell with pride at the memory of two fine young men who died with honour and the respect of so many. Now perhaps they can Rest in Peace...they deserve to..
Oh yes to BarbiesBoyfriend a word of advice, if you have nothing intelligent to say its often better to keep quiet.....please do
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PIRB
Age: 62
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another establishment cover up exposed,I have been following this thread for years, and at last justice has been done, but sufficiently planned and late to create any major scandal. It is obvious that the aircraft software was flawed. Does anybody really think that qualified pilots would start messing about with a load of VIP's in the back?> As for all that contributed to the cover up, they should be jailed, disgraced and any public pension removed 
Oh and is HM Gov going to seek damages for the families from whoever supplied the faulty software, er.........no, because they dont want to upset anybody, especially the yanks.... and the idiots in the
RAF have already done a brilliant job clouding (sic) the issues so it would never win. absolutely pathetic from start to finish
Oh and is HM Gov going to seek damages for the families from whoever supplied the faulty software, er.........no, because they dont want to upset anybody, especially the yanks.... and the idiots in theRAF have already done a brilliant job clouding (sic) the issues so it would never win. absolutely pathetic from start to finish
Last edited by dope05; 13th Jul 2011 at 19:20.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
A couple of years ago it was I who persuaded David Cameron and Liam Fox that the former could not do as he promised the supporters of the crew of ZD576 and simply exonerate the crew when he came to power. I pointed out several reasons why this ‘forgiveness on a whim’ would not work and I explained in detail how the findings of the reviewing officers were reached. Following a very long conversation with Gerald Howarth MP, it was agreed that the only honourable course of action was a review of the findings/evidence.
When Lord Philip’s review was announced, I wrote to the Daily Telegraph stating that, unless the review came up with a plausible answer to the cause of the accident, the deep schisms which had split the ‘military aviation community’ would remain. So it has proved to be. Lord Philip has produced what amounts to a legal rebuttal of the reviewing officers’ findings but it gets us no nearer to finding out the cause of this accident. Therein lies its weakness.
I congratulate those who have been so steadfast in their support for the crew of ZD576 and by extension, their families. It has been a display of persistence similar to that shown following the F15 crashes in Scotland. I have always maintained that, if ever I was in such a situation, I could not wish for firmer resolve from my friends than has been shown in this case.
There is, however, one aspect of which I have been – to put it mildly – disappointed. This has been the persistent attempts to pillory and denigrate the Reviewing Officers in the posts on this Thread. I do not believe that Air Marshals Day and Wratten have acted in any way that deserves such opprobrium. Furthermore, it should be remembered that both these officers have been retired for 8 and 14 years respectively and in that time there has been no evidence presented which would lead them to re enter the Lists or to reconsider their own findings or to believe them to have been flawed originally.
So we are still left with the question as to what did happen on that evening in June 1994. One of the best reviews I have read is the book: “Chinook Crash” by Steuart Campbell and I commend it to all, regardless of which side they stand on this unhappy incident.
From a personal viewpoint, I am left with many questions. A few are as follows:
First, why route the aircraft towards the Mull when there was a poor weather forecast? As shown earlier on this Thread, steering a course north westwards after leaving Aldergrove and then turning right onto the heading originally chosen, would have carried the aircraft clear of the Mull.
Second, what was the crew intending to do, if they encountered poor weather? They could not go IMC and climb to safety height because of the icing layer and so their only option was to turn away from the Mull.
Third, the aircraft was being flown throughout at close to the ‘vibration limits’ for a Chinook with passengers on board, was this because the crew was obsessed with needing to complete the task and get back to Aldergrove? How did the crew duty time equation impact on their thinking?
Fourth, did the crew think that the signal tower was actually the lighthouse and hence believe they were ‘in the clear’ as it passed down the right hand side of the aircraft.
Five, were the actions of the crew in entering a waypoint change shortly before the collision, those of a crew wrestling with a major emergency?
Since VE-Day, the RAF has lost nearly 9500 aircraft to accident and there have been over 6000 fatal casualties. There have been two other peacetime, single aircraft losses more deadly than this one but there has been none more divisive and with a cause more hotly disputed, than ZD576.
Regardless of where you stand, I hope you will agree with me that perhaps today’s announcement will bring some comfort to the families who have agonised these past years.
Old Duffer
A couple of years ago it was I who persuaded David Cameron and Liam Fox that the former could not do as he promised the supporters of the crew of ZD576 and simply exonerate the crew when he came to power. I pointed out several reasons why this ‘forgiveness on a whim’ would not work and I explained in detail how the findings of the reviewing officers were reached. Following a very long conversation with Gerald Howarth MP, it was agreed that the only honourable course of action was a review of the findings/evidence.
When Lord Philip’s review was announced, I wrote to the Daily Telegraph stating that, unless the review came up with a plausible answer to the cause of the accident, the deep schisms which had split the ‘military aviation community’ would remain. So it has proved to be. Lord Philip has produced what amounts to a legal rebuttal of the reviewing officers’ findings but it gets us no nearer to finding out the cause of this accident. Therein lies its weakness.
I congratulate those who have been so steadfast in their support for the crew of ZD576 and by extension, their families. It has been a display of persistence similar to that shown following the F15 crashes in Scotland. I have always maintained that, if ever I was in such a situation, I could not wish for firmer resolve from my friends than has been shown in this case.
There is, however, one aspect of which I have been – to put it mildly – disappointed. This has been the persistent attempts to pillory and denigrate the Reviewing Officers in the posts on this Thread. I do not believe that Air Marshals Day and Wratten have acted in any way that deserves such opprobrium. Furthermore, it should be remembered that both these officers have been retired for 8 and 14 years respectively and in that time there has been no evidence presented which would lead them to re enter the Lists or to reconsider their own findings or to believe them to have been flawed originally.
So we are still left with the question as to what did happen on that evening in June 1994. One of the best reviews I have read is the book: “Chinook Crash” by Steuart Campbell and I commend it to all, regardless of which side they stand on this unhappy incident.
From a personal viewpoint, I am left with many questions. A few are as follows:
First, why route the aircraft towards the Mull when there was a poor weather forecast? As shown earlier on this Thread, steering a course north westwards after leaving Aldergrove and then turning right onto the heading originally chosen, would have carried the aircraft clear of the Mull.
Second, what was the crew intending to do, if they encountered poor weather? They could not go IMC and climb to safety height because of the icing layer and so their only option was to turn away from the Mull.
Third, the aircraft was being flown throughout at close to the ‘vibration limits’ for a Chinook with passengers on board, was this because the crew was obsessed with needing to complete the task and get back to Aldergrove? How did the crew duty time equation impact on their thinking?
Fourth, did the crew think that the signal tower was actually the lighthouse and hence believe they were ‘in the clear’ as it passed down the right hand side of the aircraft.
Five, were the actions of the crew in entering a waypoint change shortly before the collision, those of a crew wrestling with a major emergency?
Since VE-Day, the RAF has lost nearly 9500 aircraft to accident and there have been over 6000 fatal casualties. There have been two other peacetime, single aircraft losses more deadly than this one but there has been none more divisive and with a cause more hotly disputed, than ZD576.
Regardless of where you stand, I hope you will agree with me that perhaps today’s announcement will bring some comfort to the families who have agonised these past years.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry Old Duffer but I strongly disagree with your last.
Sir John Day may well have received poor advice from a DLS Sqn Ldr with no knowledge of AP 3207, but in a matter as important as this he should have sought further clarification.
Air Commodore Hine, author of the "No doubt whatsoever" requirement was available.
Air Commodore Peacock-Edwards the "then", Inspector of Flight Safety told Wratten and Day that the verdict was not justified by the facts.
They have had seventeen years to right this wrong.
Sorry, I am ashamed to have served with these Officers
Sir John Day may well have received poor advice from a DLS Sqn Ldr with no knowledge of AP 3207, but in a matter as important as this he should have sought further clarification.
Air Commodore Hine, author of the "No doubt whatsoever" requirement was available.
Air Commodore Peacock-Edwards the "then", Inspector of Flight Safety told Wratten and Day that the verdict was not justified by the facts.
They have had seventeen years to right this wrong.
Sorry, I am ashamed to have served with these Officers
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall, this is the third megathread on this issue and every conceivable question, speculative scenario and theory has been raised as to the cause of the accident short of possible alien involvement. It too may have been raised but I blocked some of the more 'speculative' (I'm feeling generous) posters years ago.
Lord Philip has correctly identified the nub of the issue in that there was never the evidence to support a finding beyond any doubt whatsoever as required by the prevailing regulations. Can we not just leave it at that?
Years ago I likened fighting the wilful ignorance (thank you for the phrase, Sir William!) of the MoD to trying to wrestle a salmon. I sometimes questioned my sanity but prevailed after 12 years. That Brian et. al. have had the tenacity and persistence to bring this salmon wrestling match to a successful conclusion after 17 years of sheer hard work is worth a damned site more than 'back-slapping'. Just think what a service the RAF could be if it had more Brians in it, and how proud each of us would be if we thought there was someone like Brian to fight our corner if we were unable to.
Back-slap away, I say. It certainly beats the more familiar back-stabbing and backside-covering for which the RAF in those days could, unfortunately, be rather more renowned.
Lord Philip has correctly identified the nub of the issue in that there was never the evidence to support a finding beyond any doubt whatsoever as required by the prevailing regulations. Can we not just leave it at that?
Years ago I likened fighting the wilful ignorance (thank you for the phrase, Sir William!) of the MoD to trying to wrestle a salmon. I sometimes questioned my sanity but prevailed after 12 years. That Brian et. al. have had the tenacity and persistence to bring this salmon wrestling match to a successful conclusion after 17 years of sheer hard work is worth a damned site more than 'back-slapping'. Just think what a service the RAF could be if it had more Brians in it, and how proud each of us would be if we thought there was someone like Brian to fight our corner if we were unable to.
Back-slap away, I say. It certainly beats the more familiar back-stabbing and backside-covering for which the RAF in those days could, unfortunately, be rather more renowned.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have long reached the point where reason has departed this discussion to be replaced by obsession. I thought that the point of this campaign was to remove the 'gross negligence' label, but it seems that the pilots must be totally cleared of blame. Well you can't, ultimately the question remains, what were they doing in those conditions, at that level and speed in what apparantly was a perfectly servicable aircraft in controlled flight? They certainly put themselves in a position that in the event of a problem they would be very vulnerable indeed. You can have as many lawyers, Lords, Scottish sheriffs et al as you like, but those of us who have operated SH in N Ireland and that includes AM Day suspect aircrew error.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read through most of today's report I am surprised by the lengths that Liam Fox took to state that the Reviewing Officers were not to blame, and that these two distinguished men didn't under the concept of "absolutely no doubt whatsover". The report (link on The Campaign for Justice for the Pilots of ZD576) paints a very different picture of the involvement of Messrs Day and Wratten, and is far less complimentary than Dr Fox's statement to the House of Commons this afternoon. During their evidence, as during the previous 17 years, these two have presented assumptions as facts, and dismissed facts which did not suit as speculation, to back up their arguments.
If you take the time to read through the original BoI (link from within today's report) it is clear that there was plenty of doubt right from the start of the process and I find it inexcusable that Day & Wratten could ignore this, along with evidence from the AAIB and others in order to draw a conclusion which suited their needs.
More recently, in his evidence to the Phillip enquiry, Sir John Day stated that he and his staff who reviewed the BoI were unanimous in finding Gross Negligence. I discussed this point with a friend (now retired) who was one of the officers on John Day's staff who reviewed the report, and his recollection was the exact opposite. He told me that no-one in High Wycombe considered the pilots should be blamed and that they were "astonished" when the AOC did exactly that.
I think it is a great pity that Messrs Wratten and Day (and, to a certain extent, Grp Capt Crawford) have got away scot-free, but in reality it was never likely that they would be held to account. It is clear however, as Poltergeist suggests, that the root cause of this tragedy - let us not lose sight of the 29 people who died - began much earlier within the RAF.
At the end of the day however the families are satisfied and so the matter should be laid to rest.
If you take the time to read through the original BoI (link from within today's report) it is clear that there was plenty of doubt right from the start of the process and I find it inexcusable that Day & Wratten could ignore this, along with evidence from the AAIB and others in order to draw a conclusion which suited their needs.
More recently, in his evidence to the Phillip enquiry, Sir John Day stated that he and his staff who reviewed the BoI were unanimous in finding Gross Negligence. I discussed this point with a friend (now retired) who was one of the officers on John Day's staff who reviewed the report, and his recollection was the exact opposite. He told me that no-one in High Wycombe considered the pilots should be blamed and that they were "astonished" when the AOC did exactly that.
I think it is a great pity that Messrs Wratten and Day (and, to a certain extent, Grp Capt Crawford) have got away scot-free, but in reality it was never likely that they would be held to account. It is clear however, as Poltergeist suggests, that the root cause of this tragedy - let us not lose sight of the 29 people who died - began much earlier within the RAF.
At the end of the day however the families are satisfied and so the matter should be laid to rest.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonsence, Wratten and Day had no axe to grind and it is not true that no one at High Wycombe agreed. 'This problem began much earlier in the RAF' what is that supposed to mean? The problem began just short of the Mull. It may not be the custom to pin gross negligence without proof absolute, OK, but how else can you explain this accident? The procedure in those conditions would be to slow down, mantain visual referrences and if necessary land on the beach, so why didn't they? All the nonsence about the aircrafts fitness to fly in icing, fadec problems etc etc are red herrings. We haven't, before or after this incident, had Chinooks throwing themselves into rocks and it is very very improbable that this one did, and after all, if the crew were concerned that this could happen perhaps a good idea would be to avoid the conditions that would make handling the issue impossible.
We haven't, before or after this incident, had Chinooks throwing themselves into rocks and it is very very improbable that this one did
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you consider the experience levels of this 4 man crew, let's not forget the crewmen would have been involved what was happening, I am at a total loss as to why this accident happened.
If it was a low speed impact I could maybe understand but to stood in at full tilt simply does not fit with any SH methodology I ever came across.