Chinook - Still Hitting Back
Only 188 names so far? Come on people - out of the closet, get your name on the list and let's get Brian up to the 300 names he needs to get the petition into Mr Blair's face
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Been reading all day. Please help me get my head around this.
1. What in ACM Day's evidence is either a.) Not true b.) Wrong or inaccurate? - because unless some of it is, I have to say, I feel I am not so sure of what I thought I once knew.
2. If TANS- RNS 252 was untrustworthy,(and was known to be. Errors of up to two miles - according to Capt. Cook) what would account for the action of plotting (or maintaining) a waypoint, within 1km of the Mull, bearing in mind the weather conditions that were apparent. - Is this the grounds for the gross negligence decision?
I feel I am missing a vital piece of the jigsaw. All help gratefully accepted.
Been reading all day. Please help me get my head around this.
1. What in ACM Day's evidence is either a.) Not true b.) Wrong or inaccurate? - because unless some of it is, I have to say, I feel I am not so sure of what I thought I once knew.
2. If TANS- RNS 252 was untrustworthy,(and was known to be. Errors of up to two miles - according to Capt. Cook) what would account for the action of plotting (or maintaining) a waypoint, within 1km of the Mull, bearing in mind the weather conditions that were apparent. - Is this the grounds for the gross negligence decision?
I feel I am missing a vital piece of the jigsaw. All help gratefully accepted.
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Dixon:
I was happy to sign the petition, but would it not be easier just to have an on-line form to do that rather than an e-mail. Poor swashy was a bit confused at first until the light dawned....
Just a suggestion, mate. If easier, might get more signatures.....?
Anyway, keep up the good work. Not a very impressive pair, are they......
I was happy to sign the petition, but would it not be easier just to have an on-line form to do that rather than an e-mail. Poor swashy was a bit confused at first until the light dawned....
Just a suggestion, mate. If easier, might get more signatures.....?
Anyway, keep up the good work. Not a very impressive pair, are they......
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Added my name to the petition. I've followed this & the previous thread for a long long time now. Never felt qualified to comment, being neither a helicopter pilot not a member of the RAF. I've always felt that something was rotten about the whole affair, so decided to add my support.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and Slow - Have a look on the website for the report by Tony Collins of Computer Weekly. It explains the whole thing far better than I could. Follow the link to Reports. You'll need Acrobat Reader, but you can download it via the site if necessary.
Swashplate - a form would be easier, but the server it's on is a free one, and doesn't do clever stuff. If anyone knows of a free (we haven't got a budget for this) server which supports Front Page Extensions please mail me - [email protected] - with the details. It would be nice if I didn't have to manually add the names as well. The pages to do this are actually written, I just need to find somewhere to host them. Been too busy keeping the petition up to date recently!
The other thing about emails is that some people may be worried about divulging their email addresses - if that's a problem, mail us via Hotmail or put a dummy reply address in or something. However, as it says on the site - under no circumstances will email addresses or other information be divulged to anyone.
Cargorat2 - thanks for the support, keep 'em coming.
There's some new stuff on the site today, notably a report on the Select Committee hearing last week, and links to the transcripts.
No more updates to the site till next Wednesday, I'm off on holiday for a few days.
Swashplate - a form would be easier, but the server it's on is a free one, and doesn't do clever stuff. If anyone knows of a free (we haven't got a budget for this) server which supports Front Page Extensions please mail me - [email protected] - with the details. It would be nice if I didn't have to manually add the names as well. The pages to do this are actually written, I just need to find somewhere to host them. Been too busy keeping the petition up to date recently!
The other thing about emails is that some people may be worried about divulging their email addresses - if that's a problem, mail us via Hotmail or put a dummy reply address in or something. However, as it says on the site - under no circumstances will email addresses or other information be divulged to anyone.
Cargorat2 - thanks for the support, keep 'em coming.
There's some new stuff on the site today, notably a report on the Select Committee hearing last week, and links to the transcripts.
No more updates to the site till next Wednesday, I'm off on holiday for a few days.
Low & Slow, Re. Day & Wratten evidence - there are a couple of serious flaws in their argument but I'm not going to post that info at the moment - the info has been sent on to the HL committee who will hear it in public during the next hearings.
My point throughout this exercise is that the AM's evidence IS compelling if it is accepted at face value - but if one questions the very basis of the "facts" it throws their whole case into disarray.
I spoke to 2 former Armed Forces Ministers last week and they both were still convinced by the MOD's so-called evidence. It's not until you point out the flaws in the MOD case that you can see the raised eyebrows at how they have been decieved.
We shall see what the Lords think.
My point throughout this exercise is that the AM's evidence IS compelling if it is accepted at face value - but if one questions the very basis of the "facts" it throws their whole case into disarray.
I spoke to 2 former Armed Forces Ministers last week and they both were still convinced by the MOD's so-called evidence. It's not until you point out the flaws in the MOD case that you can see the raised eyebrows at how they have been decieved.
We shall see what the Lords think.
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh...thats OK Chocks - didn't know that your server wouldn't do that.
Sorry, don't know of any other servers that will.
BTW, anyone who wants to sign petetion and (like me) grey matter down for maintenance - when your e-mail thing comes up, just put your name and say you wish to sign petition. Worked for me!!
Sorry, don't know of any other servers that will.
BTW, anyone who wants to sign petetion and (like me) grey matter down for maintenance - when your e-mail thing comes up, just put your name and say you wish to sign petition. Worked for me!!
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
Thanks to everyone for their support.
Thanks to JN for sorting the question from Low & Slow.
Tons of thanks to Chocks for everything he is doing on the web site.
Here's the information for the next public session at the House of Lords:
Monday 15 & Tuesday 16 October 4.30 - 7.00pm
Evidence will be taken from Sqn Ldr David Morgan RAF & Mr Mark Holbrook who gave evidence to the original Board of Inquiry, Sqn Ldr Robert Burke RAF (ret'd)-former unit test pilot RAF Odiham, Capt R Macdonald FRAeS and Capt Kohn FRAeS, and possibly others.
Hearing will be held in Committee Room 3, Palace of Westminster (access via St Stephen's Entrance).
I also believe that the AAIB Report and the RAF Board of Inquiry will be published on the Parliament web site sometime later this month. Once they are, I will publish the links on PPRuNe and the official web site.
Thanks everyone for your support.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thanks to JN for sorting the question from Low & Slow.
Tons of thanks to Chocks for everything he is doing on the web site.
Here's the information for the next public session at the House of Lords:
Monday 15 & Tuesday 16 October 4.30 - 7.00pm
Evidence will be taken from Sqn Ldr David Morgan RAF & Mr Mark Holbrook who gave evidence to the original Board of Inquiry, Sqn Ldr Robert Burke RAF (ret'd)-former unit test pilot RAF Odiham, Capt R Macdonald FRAeS and Capt Kohn FRAeS, and possibly others.
Hearing will be held in Committee Room 3, Palace of Westminster (access via St Stephen's Entrance).
I also believe that the AAIB Report and the RAF Board of Inquiry will be published on the Parliament web site sometime later this month. Once they are, I will publish the links on PPRuNe and the official web site.
Thanks everyone for your support.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
Just downloaded and printed the HOL stuff, and about to digest all over a pint.
Quick scan of Wratten's answers and the word 'hypothesis' leaps out over and over.
That's the whole crux of the matter. In the absence of evidence his hypothesising has convinced him he knows the answers.
When tested to the requirement that he knows with 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what caused the accident, it all looks a bit thin.
What he is saying, low & slow, May be all true. (Idon't think it is). The point is that to find our heros guilty of Gross Negligence he must be able to prove it.
When are the next hearings?
I'll be applying for the time off this time!
Quick scan of Wratten's answers and the word 'hypothesis' leaps out over and over.
That's the whole crux of the matter. In the absence of evidence his hypothesising has convinced him he knows the answers.
When tested to the requirement that he knows with 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what caused the accident, it all looks a bit thin.
What he is saying, low & slow, May be all true. (Idon't think it is). The point is that to find our heros guilty of Gross Negligence he must be able to prove it.
When are the next hearings?
I'll be applying for the time off this time!
Just a numbered other
After a first reading of the HOL examinations a few important points come out.
In ACM Day’s evidence, He refers to the weather pertaining at Machrihanish (note: not the Mull). He says
‘The temperature at plus 11 is also perhaps significant.’
It is indeed very significant, as he goes on to use it to calculate the limiting 4deg C isotherm at 3500ft (using the standard 2deg C per 1000ft lapse rate. This neatly allows him to use the fact that the aircraft was not climbed to its safety altitude of 2800ft as a pointer to their negligence.
He must be asked why he chose to ignore the AAIB report which gives the surface temperature at the Mull at the time of the accident as 9 degrees C. This would give a 4 deg C level of 2500ft i.e. below SALT of 2800ft
Could it just be that this would mean that a climb to SALT was not possible, therefore destroying part of his rickety case for negligence?
More relevant than the actual conditions, what was the forecast to which Tapper and Cook were planning? I think Andy Pulford's feeling that an IFR climb had been discounted by the crew is telling. I wouldn't have fancied a climb into icing conditions either.
In ACM Day’s evidence, He refers to the weather pertaining at Machrihanish (note: not the Mull). He says
‘The temperature at plus 11 is also perhaps significant.’
It is indeed very significant, as he goes on to use it to calculate the limiting 4deg C isotherm at 3500ft (using the standard 2deg C per 1000ft lapse rate. This neatly allows him to use the fact that the aircraft was not climbed to its safety altitude of 2800ft as a pointer to their negligence.
He must be asked why he chose to ignore the AAIB report which gives the surface temperature at the Mull at the time of the accident as 9 degrees C. This would give a 4 deg C level of 2500ft i.e. below SALT of 2800ft
Could it just be that this would mean that a climb to SALT was not possible, therefore destroying part of his rickety case for negligence?
More relevant than the actual conditions, what was the forecast to which Tapper and Cook were planning? I think Andy Pulford's feeling that an IFR climb had been discounted by the crew is telling. I wouldn't have fancied a climb into icing conditions either.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The petition is now past 200 names - 211 tonight to be exact. Keep 'em coming.
Just had an email from someone saying they'd read about the website in the Basingstoke Gazette Extra - fame at last!
Just had an email from someone saying they'd read about the website in the Basingstoke Gazette Extra - fame at last!
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
Just to let you all know that the next round of public sessions with the House of Lords Select Committee starts tomorrow (Mon 15 Oct).
I'll post an overview of the meeting as soon as I am able, both here and on the web site.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'll post an overview of the meeting as soon as I am able, both here and on the web site.
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
An interesting two days. I am in the process of decyphering my scribbly handwriting. As soon as I am able. I'll post an overview of the days.
Everyone who gave evidence over the past two days should be congratulated upon their professionalism and dignity.
I'll also include the Hansard link once it is known - unless, of course, I am beaten to it again
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Everyone who gave evidence over the past two days should be congratulated upon their professionalism and dignity.
I'll also include the Hansard link once it is known - unless, of course, I am beaten to it again
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
vincit veritas
Ananova has two good summaries:
15th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_424529.html
16th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_425495.html
15th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_424529.html
16th Oct: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_425495.html
I think I can probably do a bit of it without notes:
Sqn Ldr Dave Morgan gave an almost identical take on events as the MOD - it was honest but revealed nothing new. Indeed a couple of his comments gave credence to the families version of events.
The 3 Captains of the RAeS gave their critique of the MOD version of events which repeated most of the arguments we have heard before but did put them on record. Ron McDonald's views on the difficulty of accident simulation were revealing and the committee was given a good counter to the RAF's reconstruction.
Mark Holbrook - the yachtsman and the last eyewitness - was brilliant. He drove a coach and horses through Wratten's account of the weather and how the crew were guilty some time before the crash. Wratten sneered.
Sqn Ldr Bob Burke gave a great account of why so much of the MOD's argument was opinion rather than fact. The Lords were most interested in his evidence & questioned him at length.
Throughout the whole process Wratten and Day smirked to each other at every contradiction of their statements as if to say "Why are we here, why can't these stupid people see what we can see?"
Although the MOD got a severe kicking over the last few days be in no doubt that they will come back fighting. The next hearing is on 7th November when Gp Capt Crawford appears and Tony Cable (AAIB) and Day are re-called.
More to come.
Sqn Ldr Dave Morgan gave an almost identical take on events as the MOD - it was honest but revealed nothing new. Indeed a couple of his comments gave credence to the families version of events.
The 3 Captains of the RAeS gave their critique of the MOD version of events which repeated most of the arguments we have heard before but did put them on record. Ron McDonald's views on the difficulty of accident simulation were revealing and the committee was given a good counter to the RAF's reconstruction.
Mark Holbrook - the yachtsman and the last eyewitness - was brilliant. He drove a coach and horses through Wratten's account of the weather and how the crew were guilty some time before the crash. Wratten sneered.
Sqn Ldr Bob Burke gave a great account of why so much of the MOD's argument was opinion rather than fact. The Lords were most interested in his evidence & questioned him at length.
Throughout the whole process Wratten and Day smirked to each other at every contradiction of their statements as if to say "Why are we here, why can't these stupid people see what we can see?"
Although the MOD got a severe kicking over the last few days be in no doubt that they will come back fighting. The next hearing is on 7th November when Gp Capt Crawford appears and Tony Cable (AAIB) and Day are re-called.
More to come.
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
Thanks John,
a couple of quotes I wrote during the two days-
Sqn Ldr Morgan (When asked about the Flight Reference Cards) - " A number were not quite user friendly."
Mr Mark Holbrook (Appeared to be controlling his anger very well) - "I was suprised and distressed by the findngs of Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten." and "I feel my evidence was not collected with due dilligence."
Sqn Ldr Burke (When commenting about his removal from assisting an AAIB inspector) - "You are not to discuss this with anyone. This is a direct order".
(Of Master Air Loadmaster Forbes) - "Mr Forbes was the best crewman I ever flew with."
The hearing on 7th November is expected to be the last, so book early to avoid disappointment!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Typos again!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
a couple of quotes I wrote during the two days-
Sqn Ldr Morgan (When asked about the Flight Reference Cards) - " A number were not quite user friendly."
Mr Mark Holbrook (Appeared to be controlling his anger very well) - "I was suprised and distressed by the findngs of Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten." and "I feel my evidence was not collected with due dilligence."
Sqn Ldr Burke (When commenting about his removal from assisting an AAIB inspector) - "You are not to discuss this with anyone. This is a direct order".
(Of Master Air Loadmaster Forbes) - "Mr Forbes was the best crewman I ever flew with."
The hearing on 7th November is expected to be the last, so book early to avoid disappointment!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Typos again!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Brian, and John et al. for the reports - I am so sorry that I missed this week. I always knew ( from the Paisley inquiry) that Mark Holbrook's original evidence was being discredited for some unknown ( or should I say some suspicious reason?!!
The weather at the Mull is always enigmatic ( yes that's the word!) I received a card only this week from someone who had been looking at it across the irish sea and it was clear and visible but the top had it's usual "orographic" cloud cover. I just know that John and Rick could see where they were - they just could not do anything about it!! And THAT statement is as objective as anything that Wratten and Day produced !!!know[*]null
The weather at the Mull is always enigmatic ( yes that's the word!) I received a card only this week from someone who had been looking at it across the irish sea and it was clear and visible but the top had it's usual "orographic" cloud cover. I just know that John and Rick could see where they were - they just could not do anything about it!! And THAT statement is as objective as anything that Wratten and Day produced !!!know[*]null
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
Whilst we're on the subject of the weather, here's some of the comments made to the Scottish FAI by the Met Officer:
"I am told that Mr Murchie, one of the lighthouse keepers, came out of his house and looked out to sea as the Chinook approached. I understand that in doing so all that he could see was a wall of fog. It is quite conceivable that on approach to the lighthouse the Chinook could actually see the lighthouse being the first way point and I do not consider Mr Murchie's evidence as to the prevailing weather conditions to be particularly relevant as it is taken from a different perspective from that of the approaching helicopter."
And
"Just because the weather station at Macrihanish was reporting one type of weather does not mean that the conditions on the Mull of Kintyre were the same and it is quite possible that they were completely different."
Whatever the weather, there will always be a ray of light on the Mull.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
"I am told that Mr Murchie, one of the lighthouse keepers, came out of his house and looked out to sea as the Chinook approached. I understand that in doing so all that he could see was a wall of fog. It is quite conceivable that on approach to the lighthouse the Chinook could actually see the lighthouse being the first way point and I do not consider Mr Murchie's evidence as to the prevailing weather conditions to be particularly relevant as it is taken from a different perspective from that of the approaching helicopter."
And
"Just because the weather station at Macrihanish was reporting one type of weather does not mean that the conditions on the Mull of Kintyre were the same and it is quite possible that they were completely different."
Whatever the weather, there will always be a ray of light on the Mull.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook