Chinook - Still Hitting Back

[Chocks Wahay]

Brian Dixon - thanks for the kind words about the website. As usual you're being far too modest - you did most of the work, my contribution was just a bit of tidying, make it look nice(ish) and putting it up on the net.

John Nichol - Thanks also for the comments, and yes, a job would be lovely thanks ...

[Flatiron]

Having not contributed to this debate for some 30 pages or so, I beg to raise the question of what sort of remedy people are after. As a pilot, the only opinion that really matters to me is the good/bad opinion of other aviation professionals.

Now, suppose Mr Hoon or some other distinguished civilian(s) in or around Whitehall decide that this is all getting too much. They then come out and say that it is time to move on, the Mull BoI did its best at the time, and a political decision has been taken to amend the BoI findings to ease the pain of the families involved. Will that be good enough? The RAF system carried out the investigation and if 'my' RAF had judged me wrongly, I would only rest in peace if the RAF (not a few 'suits' looking for a quiet life) changed the verdict.

To be frank, politicos and lawyers can change what they will, and wrap it all up in face-saving mumbo-jumbo, but if aircrew in the crewrooms believe it was all a fudge and continue to go around talking about 'no smoke without fire', will that be good enough? Reputations are what matter to aircrew and I fear that the opinion of noble Lords, judges etc will not be sufficient in themselves. If you believe that the RAF took away the Chinook pilots' reputations, you cannot stop until you convince the RAF (and no other body) to re-examine the issue.

[Arkroyal]

Susan Phoenix.... Stunning. I cannot applaud your stance enough. I have a friend who lost a relative in the accident, and she too finds the injustice heaped on Jon and Rick quite bizarre.

I have said before that piling injustice upon grief can be no comfort to yourself and the other families involved, contrary to one of the excuses used by the MOD to avoid any re-opening of this case..

Your need to fight for just compensation is appalling, and points the finger at the finding of gross negligence being partly a financial expedient. Normally the MOD would be automatically liable, except in the case of negligence on the part of the crew.

Thank you so much for joining this debate.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi Everyone.

Taken from the a House of Lords press information release:

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CHINOOK ZD 576 CRASH
This note sets out how the Committee appointed by the House of Lords to review the crash of an RAF Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 intends to proceed.
REMIT
The Committee’s remit is “to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD 576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 were negligent”. The Committee is to report to the House of Lords by 31st January 2002.

MEMBERSHIP
The members of the Committee are:
Lord Bowness (Con.)
Lord Brennan QC (Lab.)
Lord Hooson QC (Lib. Dem.)
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle (Lord of Appeal) (Chairman)
Lord Tombs FEng (Cross Bench)

PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Committee will hold a series of hearings in the autumn. The first hearings will take place on Thursday 27th September, 11am-4.30pm, and Friday 28th September, 10.30am-4.30pm, in Committee Room 8, Palace of Westminster (access via St Stephen’s Entrance, the main public entrance to the Houses of Parliament). At these hearings, the Committee will take evidence from the officer who presided over the initial phase of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the crash, and the senior officers who reviewed the initial findings. The hearings will be open to the public and the press; the Committee reserves the right to go into private session if necessary. The Committee may invite other witnesses to testify at further hearings in October.

Regards as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[John Nichol]

I suspect this is going to be very interesting. Andy Pulford is going to be quizzed by the committee about his findings & opinions so that they can compare them with the deductions made by Day & Wratten.

Anybody coming down to watch?

[Brian Dixon]

Be rude not to.
Count me in.

Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Low and Slow]

I was intending to attend, but the dates co-incide with HELI-TECH.(If I am not mistaken) Any co-incidence?

So, I'll probably have to miss it.

I have to say I'm not that optermistic. Their Airships have a pretty slick line, and it's very well practised.

[Susan Phoenix]

Yes indeed, just before the grape harvest starts here in S.W. France!! Hopefully have an excuse to open a good bottle afterwards- need some positive vibes on this matter at last! ( and No, john I am NOT bringing a St Emilion with me!). Incidentally do we know if John Cook or Mike Tapper read this site - I have not asked them yet?

[Brian Dixon]

Hi again, Mrs Phoenix.
Yes John and Mike do read the thread(s), as does Rick's brother Chris.

Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[NOCHALANCE]

FLAT IRON; ASTUTE,SINCERE, CORRECT. ENOUGH SAID.

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all,
web page progressing nicely. Having a meeting early next week so I will update you all soon.

Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry it's a boring post. Not much to report at the moment. Couple more questions sent to MoD. Web page still progressing nicely. Hopefully more information available soon.

Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]

[Brian Dixon]

Sorry this is the same old thing. I hope the web page will be ready to launch within the next two weeks. The link will be posted as soon as we are ready to go live. Honest!!

My thanks to Chocks Wahey for all the hard work behind the scenes.

Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Brian Dixon]

In case you don't know, the previous Chinook campaign threads have been moved to the Military archive thread.

Thanks to PPRuNe for doing this.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[Arkroyal]

Back to the top with a reminder that it is just over three weeks until the House of Lords select committee sit to discuss this matter.

[misterploppy]

Scotland on Sunday 9 Sep 01:

Chinook inquiry ‘broke RAF’s own rules’

FRANCIS ELLIOTT WESTMINSTER EDITOR


A senior air force officer has said the decision to blame the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster on the aircraft’s pilots shows how military chiefs have "too much power in our democracy".

Retired Air Commodore Derek Hine, who wrote the RAF’s regulations on accident investigation, says his guidelines were ignored by senior officers who blamed the dead pilots for gross negligence.

Hine’s comments - to the House of Lords committee investigating the case - will cause serious embarrassment to the MoD, which has consistently refused to re-examine the 1994 disaster, in which 29 people died, most of them senior intelligence experts.

The families of the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, have waged a seven-year campaign to clear their loved ones’ names. They are furious that verdicts of gross negligence were returned, despite RAF rules requiring absolutely no doubt about the circumstances of an accident.

Now their hopes of having the official verdicts overturned have been given a major boost by Hine’s submission.

Scotland on Sunday has learned that Derek Hine believes the verdict was flawed. He has told the inquiry in a letter: "The decision highlights a worrying regime where two or three high-ranking military officers have too much power in our democracy."

Hine, the chairman of a working party set up in 1982 to examine investigations into military aircraft accidents, believes the regulations he framed were "ignored" by Air Chief Marshals Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day. They overturned the original RAF board of inquiry which cleared the pilots.

Wratten and Day are also due to give evidence to the committee and are expected to insist that they were justified in overturning the verdict.

[Caption] Blamed: Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook, left, and Jonathan Tapper were found posthumously guilty in the 1994 crash of a Chinook military helicopter into the Mull of Kintyre


MoD finally faces truth over Chinook

FRANCIS ELLIOTT, WESTMINSTER EDITOR


The fusty claret carpet and heavy gold wallpaper of the House of Lords committee room corridor produce an almost sepulchral hush. The muffled creak of elderly peers moving from room to room is usually the only sound to trouble this obscure corner of the Palace of Westminster.

But in a little over two weeks, the corridor’s quiet will be shattered as a seven-year saga that began in a ball of flame on a Scottish hillside prepares to reach a dramatic climax.

Controversy over the fatal accident of a Chinook military helicopter with the deaths of all 29 people on board has raged from the moment it smashed into the Mull of Kintyre on June 2, 1994.

That its passengers included a number of senior British intelligence officers ensured that the investigations into the cause of the crash won massive media attention.

But what has turned a tragedy into a cause célèbre was the decision by senior officials in the MoD to blame the two pilots for the crash - overturning an original board of inquiry and ignoring the verdict of a fatal accident inquiry.

Now a fresh investigation by a five-peer committee, led by a Lord of Appeal, is set to reopen the file of flight ZD 576 - with what promises to be devastating consequences for Britain’s military establishment.

For when Air Marshals Sir John Day and his retired colleague Sir William Wratten finally enter the Lords committee room at 11am on September 27, it will be to face what could be the sternest test of their careers.

It was Day and Wratten, as the commanders in overall charge of Chinook flights, who found Fl Lts Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper posthumously guilty of gross negligence.

They did so despite an RAF rule which states that dead aircrew can only be blamed where there is no doubt whatsoever about their culpability.

The contention of Wratten and Day has always been that the pilots were flying too low and too fast for the visibility of that foggy Thursday night. Once they entered the cloud surrounding the Mull of Kintyre the pilots should have stopped until they had enough altitude to clear it, claim the pair. "The pilots could and would have avoided the accident if they had followed a different course of action," wrote Wratten in a newspaper article last year.

However, a multitude of questions have dogged this seemingly straightforward case. Perhaps the most pressing is why Wratten and Day over-ruled the verdict of the board of inquiry they set up to investigate the crash.

The man who set the rules for the RAF’s inquiries is the now retired Air Commodore Derek Hine, who in 1982 chaired a working party on the subject.

"Our terms of reference were wide-ranging but in particular we were required to examine and make recommendations on the findings of blame and negligence against aircrew," Hine has told the Lords committee, in a highly significant submission.

It was Hine who helped to establish the standard of proof where "only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".

In a document being studied by the peers, the senior airman sets out why he believes Wratten and Day have consistently flouted his rules in the Chinook case.

"The decision highlights a worrying regime where two or three high-ranking military officers have too much power in our democracy," he writes.

The Air Marshals’ version of events faces the prospect of further attack from an RAF officer who did follow Hine’s rule but whose verdict was overturned.

Group Captain Andy Pulford, who chaired the original board of inquiry, has been called as the first witness in the new Lords inquiry. Pulford, a serving officer who has never spoken publicly about the Chinook case, will be cross-examined by the committee, led by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle.

They will ask why he reached the verdict that while "the most probable cause" was that Tapper and Cook selected the wrong rate of climb to fly over the Mull, there were "many potential causes of the accident" and that he was "unable to determine a definite cause".

Also set to appear before the committee are senior members of the MoD’s air accident investigation branch, whose testimony could prove highly embarrassing to Wratten and Day. Although the AAIB has often been cited as supporting the official line, it is thought that it, too, believes there is a significant element of doubt.

For the families of the pilots, the hearings this month offer their best hope of finding the truth of why the MoD reached the verdict that it did - and, perhaps, of removing what they believe to be a slur on the dead men’s names.

Michael Tapper, Jonathan’s father, said last night that Hine’s submission was "an extremely interesting development". But the retired bank manager from Norfolk would not be drawn further. For now, all sides are keeping their powder dry for what promises to be an explosive confrontation in the hallowed halls of the House of Lords.

What happened?

The unanswered questions:

1 How reliable was the helicopter’s newly-installed software, Full Authority Digital Electronic Control?

2 Why, if as the RAF assert it was safe, did the MoD’s own airworthiness assessment unit ground non-operational Chinooks the day before the crash?

3 What is the truth behind the MOD’s legal action against the software’s US manufacturers Textron Lycoming after an earlier accident which it blamed on the software’s ‘faulty design’?

4 Did the newly-upgraded Chinook ZD 576 have a full set of flight reference cards - the aircraft’s manual - in the cockpit? Then defence minister John Spellar told the Commons last year it had but RAF officers at the original inquiry said the cards were incomplete and potentially misleading.

5 What of the testimony of a yachtsman who could clearly see the Mull of Kintyre moments before the crash, casting doubt on the official version that the pilots were flying in poor visibility?

Scotland on Sunday

[John Nichol]

It's going to be interesting. Anyone else going to be there; perhaps we could have a "pprune corner"?

[1.3VStall]

We're potentially on the home straight. Derek Hine's input can only help the cause. Fingers crossed for justice at last.

[Arkroyal]

This is indeed good news.

Hine's assertion that W & D ignored his rules can only be good for the cause of justice.

I do hope, however, that that remains the cornerstone of the argument. The finding of gross negligence must be overturned simply because it was wrong. To get involved in all the other questions of the Chinook's failings and shortcomings will only serve to muddy the waters of a clear miscarriage of justice.

Sadly I will not be in pprune corner in the HOL, but will be following the day closely.

Home straight? last furlong!

edited for finger trouble!

[ 11 September 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]

[Brian Dixon]

Hi all.

Just to let you know that the dedicated Chinook campaign website will be launched this Friday here on the PPRuNe bulletin board. The URL will be published here first!

Until then..
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]