Chinook - Still Hitting Back
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
I left the House of Lords today astonished at what I had seen and heard. Now I see why the phrase ‘breathtaking arrogance’ was used! The SuperTANS and the GPS were referred to constantly as the ‘black boxes’ and it was commented that the President of the RAF Board of Inquiry may not have been the right man for the job!! 
(Personally, I believe that the President acted with the utmost integrity). Also, and thankfully, their Lordships are well versed in the facts of this injustice and appear to be able to differentiate between fact and speculation, unlike some others. The full transcript of the proceedings will be published on the Parliament web site on Wed 3 October so I will place the link on both the PPRuNe thread and the official campaign web site. As this is only the first day of two, I don’t feel it appropriate to make further comment until both days have been completed. Hope you all understand. However, judging by today’s experience, tomorrow will be interesting.
I also met a number of people that I have had contact with via PPRuNe and e-mail. It was a great pleasure to meet you all and thank you for your support. I was delighted to say thank you in person to IFR for all the help PPRuNe has given.
I was given a copy of an excellent booklet entitled “Chinook Doubts – A Plain Person’s Guide. Written by Mr J M Ramsden. Contents include: Circumstances, The Supreme Doubt, Other Doubts, The RAF Board of Inquiry, FADEC, RAF Accident Procedures, The Air Marshals, The Campaign for Justice, The MoD Cover-up, Conclusion. This is a very good read and is available from Mr Ramsden direct. Write to Mr J.M. Ramsden, 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, AL3 5RQ, Hertfordshire, UK. Cost is £10.00 (inc p&p), with all profit going to the RAF Benevolent Fund. Please enclose an addressed sticker.
I’ll keep you updated!
Regards all
Brian
“Justice has no expiry date” – John Cook
(Personally, I believe that the President acted with the utmost integrity). Also, and thankfully, their Lordships are well versed in the facts of this injustice and appear to be able to differentiate between fact and speculation, unlike some others. The full transcript of the proceedings will be published on the Parliament web site on Wed 3 October so I will place the link on both the PPRuNe thread and the official campaign web site. As this is only the first day of two, I don’t feel it appropriate to make further comment until both days have been completed. Hope you all understand. However, judging by today’s experience, tomorrow will be interesting.I also met a number of people that I have had contact with via PPRuNe and e-mail. It was a great pleasure to meet you all and thank you for your support. I was delighted to say thank you in person to IFR for all the help PPRuNe has given.
I was given a copy of an excellent booklet entitled “Chinook Doubts – A Plain Person’s Guide. Written by Mr J M Ramsden. Contents include: Circumstances, The Supreme Doubt, Other Doubts, The RAF Board of Inquiry, FADEC, RAF Accident Procedures, The Air Marshals, The Campaign for Justice, The MoD Cover-up, Conclusion. This is a very good read and is available from Mr Ramsden direct. Write to Mr J.M. Ramsden, 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, AL3 5RQ, Hertfordshire, UK. Cost is £10.00 (inc p&p), with all profit going to the RAF Benevolent Fund. Please enclose an addressed sticker.
I’ll keep you updated!
Regards all
Brian
“Justice has no expiry date” – John Cook
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Belfast, N. Ireland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those unable to attend the hearings but who are interested BBC Parliament channel carried yesterday's proceedings last night around 9.00-10.00.
The coverage was fascinating and I am sure they will show today's this evening
Susan, good luck with your campaign - you are a credit to their memories - may you get what you hav so long sought !
The coverage was fascinating and I am sure they will show today's this evening
Susan, good luck with your campaign - you are a credit to their memories - may you get what you hav so long sought !
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is the agency report on today's proceedings fyi folks...
CHINOOK PILOTS `HAD DOUBTS ABOUT HELICOPTER'S SAFETY'<
The father of one of the pilots blamed for the RAF's worst peacetime disaster
today spoke of his son's grave concerns over the reliability of the helicopter
which crashed into the Mull of Kintyre.<
Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were found guilty of gross
negligence by an RAF Board of Inquiry after their Chinook Mark 2 helicopter
crashed on its sortie from Northern Ireland to Scotland in June 1994.<
Today John Cook, father of Flight Lt Cook, said that when his son was told he
was being sent to Northern Ireland to fly the Mark 2 he asked him to look after
his wife and daughter.<
"He came and said he was going to Northern Ireland and they were going to
send a Mark 2. He asked us to look after Sara and Eleanor.<
"He said `Dad, the aircraft isn't ready and we are not ready'.''<
Mr Cook told the inquiry that his son had regularly expressed concern over the
Chinook Mark 2.<
An experienced airman himself, Mr Cook said his son had told him that the
flight manual was not up to date and there had been problems with spurious
warnings on the control panel.<
Flight Lt Cook had been forced to make a precautionary landing in the Mark 2
before the fatal accident, he said.<
"It's important to understand just how suspicious the crews were of the new
Mark 2,'' he added.<
Mike Tapper, father of Flight Lt Jonathan Tapper, told the inquiry that his
son also had grave concerns over the Mark 2.<
"The Mark 2 was an aircraft that truly frightened the pilots,'' he said.<
The families of the pilots set up a campaign to clear their names after the
RAF Board of Inquiry published its findings.<
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: TL Thou ]
CHINOOK PILOTS `HAD DOUBTS ABOUT HELICOPTER'S SAFETY'<
The father of one of the pilots blamed for the RAF's worst peacetime disaster
today spoke of his son's grave concerns over the reliability of the helicopter
which crashed into the Mull of Kintyre.<
Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were found guilty of gross
negligence by an RAF Board of Inquiry after their Chinook Mark 2 helicopter
crashed on its sortie from Northern Ireland to Scotland in June 1994.<
Today John Cook, father of Flight Lt Cook, said that when his son was told he
was being sent to Northern Ireland to fly the Mark 2 he asked him to look after
his wife and daughter.<
"He came and said he was going to Northern Ireland and they were going to
send a Mark 2. He asked us to look after Sara and Eleanor.<
"He said `Dad, the aircraft isn't ready and we are not ready'.''<
Mr Cook told the inquiry that his son had regularly expressed concern over the
Chinook Mark 2.<
An experienced airman himself, Mr Cook said his son had told him that the
flight manual was not up to date and there had been problems with spurious
warnings on the control panel.<
Flight Lt Cook had been forced to make a precautionary landing in the Mark 2
before the fatal accident, he said.<
"It's important to understand just how suspicious the crews were of the new
Mark 2,'' he added.<
Mike Tapper, father of Flight Lt Jonathan Tapper, told the inquiry that his
son also had grave concerns over the Mark 2.<
"The Mark 2 was an aircraft that truly frightened the pilots,'' he said.<
The families of the pilots set up a campaign to clear their names after the
RAF Board of Inquiry published its findings.<
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: TL Thou ]
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
Did I hear correctly? The Board of Inquiry was returned to the President to 'look again' at his conclusion as it did not fit in with the thoughts of others.
Someone please tell me that I have got that wrong.
There was talk of 'moral courage' in reaching the negligent decision. I'm sorry but I disagree. The only courage I saw over the past two days was that of the President of the BoI. It must have taken nerves of steel to take his findings to the reviewing officers, who appear to regard all officers who disagree with their opinion, as being disposable.
As always, I'm happy to admit that I am wrong.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Someone please tell me that I have got that wrong.
There was talk of 'moral courage' in reaching the negligent decision. I'm sorry but I disagree. The only courage I saw over the past two days was that of the President of the BoI. It must have taken nerves of steel to take his findings to the reviewing officers, who appear to regard all officers who disagree with their opinion, as being disposable.
As always, I'm happy to admit that I am wrong.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
slj,
thank you for your confirmation. It begs the question, why convene a BoI if you already believe you know what happened? Hardly a decision reached after hearing all available evidence. It simply defies belief.
I agree that both Mike Tapper and John Cook were excellent. How they retained their composure and dignity after having listened to what had been said before, I do not know. They are, without question, true gentlemen of the highest integrity.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
thank you for your confirmation. It begs the question, why convene a BoI if you already believe you know what happened? Hardly a decision reached after hearing all available evidence. It simply defies belief.
I agree that both Mike Tapper and John Cook were excellent. How they retained their composure and dignity after having listened to what had been said before, I do not know. They are, without question, true gentlemen of the highest integrity.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here here. i watched the proceedings on the parliamentary channel yesterday evening, and have to say that messrs day and wratten, although consistent with their opinions, did not respond at all well to even minor scrutiny. whilst both sir john and sir bill's evidence was compelling, they did not produce enough cogent evidence to secure the case even on the balance of probabilities, let alone no doubt whatsoever (imho of course). it was evident that there were obvious doubts as to the events of the tragedy.
i must echo the comments from brian in that capt cook and mr tapper displayed extraordinary restraint, dignity and integrity in their conduct. following the self-serving evidence from 2 people with a great deal to lose, i am not sure i would have been able to do the same.
i must echo the comments from brian in that capt cook and mr tapper displayed extraordinary restraint, dignity and integrity in their conduct. following the self-serving evidence from 2 people with a great deal to lose, i am not sure i would have been able to do the same.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Brian, right on all counts- I did not think that I would ever feel such emotion or indeed anger over this accident that claimed my soul mate's life again - but - After witnessing the time wasting and patronising presentation about what "actually" happened by Day and his account of what "should" have happened I know, by the observed body language and general mutterings that my feelings were reflected by the majority present in the honourable Lords' room.
I can only echo everyone else's admiration for the courage and dignified restraint of Mike Tapper and John Cook in their very relevant and calm presentations. I am only sorry that I am not as dignified when I witness such a performance.
Grp Capt Pulford too is to be congratulated on his dignity in the face of arrogance personified. (Even though he did mistake me for a member of the press!)It was obvious that scapegoating was still the name of the game from many quarters! It is important to remember that his board of inquiry (quite correctly) did not allocate blame to the pilots given the lack of sufficient evidence - but, in typical self justification mode, the "senior" officers chose to describe this as a result "not correctly interpreted by the board" - Hence, we now have the perfect illustration of lack of support for not only two fine young dead pilots but also for a fine young senior officer who also did his duty as head of a Board of Inquiry in the most horrific peace time accident in the RAF history. I can only reiterate an earlier statement - that we need look no further if we wish to see why fully trained pilots leave early instead of staying to support a service that seems to have lost all concept of "loyalty and fairness" from above.
We heard about Day's self acknowledged "moral courage" needed to condemn the reputations of the two pilots - this for me was the statement that really crowned the illustrations by Wratten and Day of just how disposable they regard aircrew. I hope that they can both sleep well knowing that 2 families continue to suffer 7 years on.
I can only recommend interested parties to read Mike Ramsden's booklet which perfectly sums the whole sitiuation.
I can only echo everyone else's admiration for the courage and dignified restraint of Mike Tapper and John Cook in their very relevant and calm presentations. I am only sorry that I am not as dignified when I witness such a performance.
Grp Capt Pulford too is to be congratulated on his dignity in the face of arrogance personified. (Even though he did mistake me for a member of the press!)It was obvious that scapegoating was still the name of the game from many quarters! It is important to remember that his board of inquiry (quite correctly) did not allocate blame to the pilots given the lack of sufficient evidence - but, in typical self justification mode, the "senior" officers chose to describe this as a result "not correctly interpreted by the board" - Hence, we now have the perfect illustration of lack of support for not only two fine young dead pilots but also for a fine young senior officer who also did his duty as head of a Board of Inquiry in the most horrific peace time accident in the RAF history. I can only reiterate an earlier statement - that we need look no further if we wish to see why fully trained pilots leave early instead of staying to support a service that seems to have lost all concept of "loyalty and fairness" from above.
We heard about Day's self acknowledged "moral courage" needed to condemn the reputations of the two pilots - this for me was the statement that really crowned the illustrations by Wratten and Day of just how disposable they regard aircrew. I hope that they can both sleep well knowing that 2 families continue to suffer 7 years on.
I can only recommend interested parties to read Mike Ramsden's booklet which perfectly sums the whole sitiuation.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Like you I was amazed with the evidence that the original finding was sent back to the then Wing Commander Pulford who was described by the last witness as a young and inexperienced President.
I was even more amazed at the apparent reasoning behind it - that the young and inexperienced President, presiding over one of the major post war tragedies, was felt to be in need of guidance from above. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact words used but I made a pencilled note at the time to the effect that is this guy really saying we were going to send this back until he (Pulford) accepts our view of events.
I gather that the two air marshall's seem to think they have shown moral courage by sticking to their guns. Wouldn't it be morale courage if they had not tried to persuade the President to change but had taken the full responsibility on their own shoulders to change the findings rather than to pressurise what they have described as a young and inexperienced President.
At least, the now Group Captain Pulford has come out of this sad, painful process with dignity.
Like you I was amazed with the evidence that the original finding was sent back to the then Wing Commander Pulford who was described by the last witness as a young and inexperienced President.
I was even more amazed at the apparent reasoning behind it - that the young and inexperienced President, presiding over one of the major post war tragedies, was felt to be in need of guidance from above. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact words used but I made a pencilled note at the time to the effect that is this guy really saying we were going to send this back until he (Pulford) accepts our view of events.
I gather that the two air marshall's seem to think they have shown moral courage by sticking to their guns. Wouldn't it be morale courage if they had not tried to persuade the President to change but had taken the full responsibility on their own shoulders to change the findings rather than to pressurise what they have described as a young and inexperienced President.
At least, the now Group Captain Pulford has come out of this sad, painful process with dignity.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Andy Pulford was obviously NOT considered too young or inexperienced to be appointed (by his AOC!) to the Presidency of the BOI, otherwise he would not have been there.
Not until he did his job as ordered, the board's findings were over-ruled and the public controversy began to take hold criticising those in higher office.
The same officers who appointed him President of the BOI, in their efforts to villify their own spiteful verdict, then tried to include him in the whitewash.
ShyT
Not until he did his job as ordered, the board's findings were over-ruled and the public controversy began to take hold criticising those in higher office.
The same officers who appointed him President of the BOI, in their efforts to villify their own spiteful verdict, then tried to include him in the whitewash.
ShyT
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Group Captain Pulford's demeanour, honesty and bearing were a real credit to him. The RAF will, I hope, realise his true value in due course.
The value of Day (I refuse to recognise his title or rank) will, I hope, show his true value to the RAF, and if found 'guilty' will do the proper thing and resign.
The value of Day (I refuse to recognise his title or rank) will, I hope, show his true value to the RAF, and if found 'guilty' will do the proper thing and resign.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
I stress the words "Young and inexperienced officer" as these were the words spoken by Day (or Wratten) at the time he was explaining to the present Inquiry, why they referred the original findings back to the original inquiry, chaired by Wing Commander Pulford.
For good measure the witness also stressed it was Wing Commander Pulford's first time presiding over an inquiry.
Time has proved that Wing Commander Pulford was a competent President with a great deal of personal integrity.
This stressing of inexperience got me thinking. Why?
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
I stress the words "Young and inexperienced officer" as these were the words spoken by Day (or Wratten) at the time he was explaining to the present Inquiry, why they referred the original findings back to the original inquiry, chaired by Wing Commander Pulford.
For good measure the witness also stressed it was Wing Commander Pulford's first time presiding over an inquiry.
Time has proved that Wing Commander Pulford was a competent President with a great deal of personal integrity.
This stressing of inexperience got me thinking. Why?
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
John Day actually said something along the lines of "in retrospect, I'm not sure he (Pulford) was the man for the job". To be fair he did back track when he realised what he'd said but the damage was done. I was watching Group Captain Pulford closely as both Day and Wratten attacked him and his demeanour barely changed apart from a wry smile and raising of his eyebrows. Day talked of the "moral courage" he himself had displayed but to attack his officer in this way was sad to watch.
One wonders how far they will go to protect themselves?
One wonders how far they will go to protect themselves?
Out of interest, if it was known that a certain ex-F4 Stn Cdr was wont to handing out what could be considered to be 'unreasonable' punishment when in power at a certain aerodrome south of the Humber, would it colour anyone's judgement?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the waiting is over! At least as far as the transcripts of the enquiry are concerned.
I have read what Day has said, and the question their Lordships asked, well read for yourself, you will certainly find it interesting!
Here is the URL:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchinook.htm
I have read what Day has said, and the question their Lordships asked, well read for yourself, you will certainly find it interesting!
Here is the URL:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldchinook.htm
To go direct to the site, click on http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldchinook.htm .
Incidentally, BBill, your 'expertise' in aviation appears not to exend to knowing that a helicopter is NOT an 'aeroplane' - something even a PPL student should know. There are, of course, different requirements for 'aircraft' such as 'helicopters' which are not 'aeroplanes' - and it pays to be equally specific when under oath, I would consider.
Incidentally, BBill, your 'expertise' in aviation appears not to exend to knowing that a helicopter is NOT an 'aeroplane' - something even a PPL student should know. There are, of course, different requirements for 'aircraft' such as 'helicopters' which are not 'aeroplanes' - and it pays to be equally specific when under oath, I would consider.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the transcript it would appear that our favourite martinet conducted himself much in the manner he did with Paxo on Newsnight. Was this the case viva-voce, Brian? One can't help but question his grip on his own self-image and, indeed, reality!
If so, I can't imagine he endeared their Lordships to his position.
Messrs Cook & Tapper Snr. appear to have conducted themselves with saintly restraint.
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: misterploppy ]
If so, I can't imagine he endeared their Lordships to his position.
Messrs Cook & Tapper Snr. appear to have conducted themselves with saintly restraint.
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: misterploppy ]
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.publications.parliament.u...9/uc279202.htm
Line 57/58 of the answer to [146]. Can someone please explain how Machrihanish is 44 ft above ground level ?
Or is this due to "fat-fingers" syndrome on the part of the stenographer?
(If anyone feels that this is too flippant to post on this thread, I shall happily transfer it to another...).
Regards,
PAAA.
Line 57/58 of the answer to [146]. Can someone please explain how Machrihanish is 44 ft above ground level ?
Or is this due to "fat-fingers" syndrome on the part of the stenographer?
(If anyone feels that this is too flippant to post on this thread, I shall happily transfer it to another...).
Regards,
PAAA.
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
I set the alarm to get up early so that I could post the link to the Lords Report only to find that I had been beaten to it, not only once but twice!!
I really must apologise for my shoddy performance.
Home from work to find that it is now there three times!
Seriously, thanks to everyone for their support.
Mr P. Hope you are well. Yes, indeed, our friend did endear himself to their Lordships. I got the impression that they were completely underwhelmed by the whole persentation.
John Cook / Mike Tapper - all said before but a very dignified presentation.
Per A Ad A. Surely in your own little world, you can put Machrihanish wherever you want?
At present there are 188 names on the campaign web site. Keep 'em coming!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I really must apologise for my shoddy performance.
Home from work to find that it is now there three times!
Seriously, thanks to everyone for their support.
Mr P. Hope you are well. Yes, indeed, our friend did endear himself to their Lordships. I got the impression that they were completely underwhelmed by the whole persentation.
John Cook / Mike Tapper - all said before but a very dignified presentation.
Per A Ad A. Surely in your own little world, you can put Machrihanish wherever you want?
At present there are 188 names on the campaign web site. Keep 'em coming!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook