Chinook - Still Hitting Back
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched Sqn Ldr Robert Burke on TV - BBC Parliament. Excellent. Calmly undermining official line, refusing to speculate about who above Wing Commander had authorised the order to keep out of the enquiry and much more besides.
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
Due to reasons that I am unable to go into, I can say that the delay in publishing the latest Hansard from their Lordships Committee is due to it having to be checked prior to publication.
As soon as it is available, I (or someone else) will post the link here.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
As soon as it is available, I (or someone else) will post the link here.
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
Hi all.
The Lords Hansard has been updated with the latest evidence. It can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldchinook.htm
Regards as always
Brian "Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The Lords Hansard has been updated with the latest evidence. It can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldchinook.htm
Regards as always
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
I have been advised that there is an excellent article regarding opinions over the accident in the November issue of Pilot magazine. I haven't seen it myself yet, but will get my copy tomorrow. If there's a link, I'll copy something down for someone to correct later 
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian - there is a 2 column review on page 79 of November's Pilot by Pat Malone of 'Chinook Doubts - a plain person's guide' by J M Ramsden (a 24 page booklet available from the author at a cost of £10).
The final paragraph of the review states "This booklet is an essential reference for anyone with an interest in flight safety. In particular I would recommend it to Fleet Street journalists who may find themselves coverng the report of the House of Lords Select Committeewhich is reviewing this accident. The booklet is succinct enough for the most ignorant to follow and includes contact information for Ramsden"
If Capt PPRuNe doesn't object to me reproducing this from Pilot, the booklet is available from: J M Ramsden, at 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, Herts AL3 5RQ
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
The final paragraph of the review states "This booklet is an essential reference for anyone with an interest in flight safety. In particular I would recommend it to Fleet Street journalists who may find themselves coverng the report of the House of Lords Select Committeewhich is reviewing this accident. The booklet is succinct enough for the most ignorant to follow and includes contact information for Ramsden"
If Capt PPRuNe doesn't object to me reproducing this from Pilot, the booklet is available from: J M Ramsden, at 20 Townsend Drive, St Albans, Herts AL3 5RQ
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
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 Beags,
I have a copy of Mr Ramsden's booklet and can confirm that it is excellent. If there is anyone out there who still has doubts, this plain speaking booklet will without doubt help you reach a conclusion.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I have a copy of Mr Ramsden's booklet and can confirm that it is excellent. If there is anyone out there who still has doubts, this plain speaking booklet will without doubt help you reach a conclusion.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sqn Ldr Burke's excellent testimony http://www.publications.parliament.u...0/u1610202.htm
Look at 658-660 and 755ff
Including:
760. You told us that somebody, Wing Commander Cooke, had ordered you not to take any further part in the investigation. Are you able to say, I am not a military man, at what level of such seniority such an order would have to emanate for a crash of this sort?
A. I have no idea, my Lord.
761. Somebody above Wing Commander?
A. I would imagine so, but that is speculation.
Look at 658-660 and 755ff
Including:
760. You told us that somebody, Wing Commander Cooke, had ordered you not to take any further part in the investigation. Are you able to say, I am not a military man, at what level of such seniority such an order would have to emanate for a crash of this sort?
A. I have no idea, my Lord.
761. Somebody above Wing Commander?
A. I would imagine so, but that is speculation.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See also Lord Brennan to Sqn Ldr Burke at:
"772. I am going to ask you to think about that further, if the Lord Chairman will allow me, we had a reconstruction put to us, I would like you to mark in which ever way you think appropriate, that which you would not have put to the Board of Inquiry if asked before February 1995?
A. I would have put to them exactly what I put to you.
773. In that event the exercise does not need to be done. In that event, if you had been asked the Air Marshals would have had ...
A. They would have had some feasible technical explanations as to what might have gone wrong, I would not put it any stronger than that.
774. Which they did not have when they came to the Inquiry's conclusion, self-evidently."
Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."
It'll be interesting to see is their Lordships pursue the question "Who told Cooke to shut Burke up?"
"772. I am going to ask you to think about that further, if the Lord Chairman will allow me, we had a reconstruction put to us, I would like you to mark in which ever way you think appropriate, that which you would not have put to the Board of Inquiry if asked before February 1995?
A. I would have put to them exactly what I put to you.
773. In that event the exercise does not need to be done. In that event, if you had been asked the Air Marshals would have had ...
A. They would have had some feasible technical explanations as to what might have gone wrong, I would not put it any stronger than that.
774. Which they did not have when they came to the Inquiry's conclusion, self-evidently."
Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."
It'll be interesting to see is their Lordships pursue the question "Who told Cooke to shut Burke up?"
Just a numbered other
Just downloaded the latest HoL stuff.
mrploppy said:
'Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."'
I suspect that this may well be the direction things are moving in. Arrogant people like those we are dealing with will never admit their mistake, no matter what their lordships find.
Rather let them off the hook than let the finding stand.
Oh, and by the way.... you are a bluff old traditionalist. You'd have to be to use a term like that
mrploppy said:
'Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I see a kite being flown for a formula to change the conclusion and exonerate Day and Wratten - "the came to their erroneous conclusions while not in posession of all the facts due to an incomplete inquiry."'
I suspect that this may well be the direction things are moving in. Arrogant people like those we are dealing with will never admit their mistake, no matter what their lordships find.
Rather let them off the hook than let the finding stand.
Oh, and by the way.... you are a bluff old traditionalist. You'd have to be to use a term like that
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The "facts" or available evidence have been available for years, for anyone in a frame of mind to take note of them.
No-one in a position of rank should be able to say that they were not in possession of that evidence.
No-one in a position of rank should be able to say that they were not in possession of that evidence.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope that the House of Lords Committee call Wing Commander Cooke and ask him the question we all want asking?
We will then find out how deep they are prepared to go to get at the truth. I just hope for the sake of the deceased pilots, their families and justice that they do so.
Whether I've read too many books or simply become more cynical with age I am not filled with much hope.
I hope their Lordships prove me wrong and if they do they will go along way to proving their worth as an independent body able to hold people in power to account.
We will then find out how deep they are prepared to go to get at the truth. I just hope for the sake of the deceased pilots, their families and justice that they do so.
Whether I've read too many books or simply become more cynical with age I am not filled with much hope.
I hope their Lordships prove me wrong and if they do they will go along way to proving their worth as an independent body able to hold people in power to account.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking objectively at the evidence and, more interestingly, the questions asked by their lordships, there always has been only one conclusion to this case.
it is the responsibility of any court, tribunal or hearing to ensure that justice is seen to be done, therefore this case was never going to result in the overtly public castigation of the 2 AM's.
the only relevant result is that the reputation of 2 outstanding young men, indeed the whole crew, is restored; and the verdict of the enquiry, comparable to manslaughter, is quashed.
it is my opinion that the committee has possibly hit upon a formulae which delivers the verdict which should have been reached years previously, and makes allowance for the negligence and subjectivity of the 2 AM's. the fact that they will be allowed to wriggle free of substantial blame is irrelevant - the result will have been acheived. Wratten and Day will never live these events down, as all credibility, respect and trust has been eroded. they know this.
perhaps jumping the gun a tad, but imho it must be realised what effect this "moral courage!!" of 2 v senior officers will have on the Servicemen of the RAF. a great deal of damage has been done.
it is the responsibility of any court, tribunal or hearing to ensure that justice is seen to be done, therefore this case was never going to result in the overtly public castigation of the 2 AM's.
the only relevant result is that the reputation of 2 outstanding young men, indeed the whole crew, is restored; and the verdict of the enquiry, comparable to manslaughter, is quashed.
it is my opinion that the committee has possibly hit upon a formulae which delivers the verdict which should have been reached years previously, and makes allowance for the negligence and subjectivity of the 2 AM's. the fact that they will be allowed to wriggle free of substantial blame is irrelevant - the result will have been acheived. Wratten and Day will never live these events down, as all credibility, respect and trust has been eroded. they know this.
perhaps jumping the gun a tad, but imho it must be realised what effect this "moral courage!!" of 2 v senior officers will have on the Servicemen of the RAF. a great deal of damage has been done.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Peter: Ditto to Ark's comment.
BW: I'd like to think it would happen. However, it is amazing the latitude Courts in this country (and the USA) give to Military authorities. If you ever get involved in an interface between the legal (including Judicial) and military professions you'll understand all too clearly how the likes of Wratten psychotically come to view their own opinions as Holy Writ.
I suspect Wg Cdr Cooke will be a can their Lordships will happily leave closed lest all sorts of worms slither out in these troubled times.
BW: I'd like to think it would happen. However, it is amazing the latitude Courts in this country (and the USA) give to Military authorities. If you ever get involved in an interface between the legal (including Judicial) and military professions you'll understand all too clearly how the likes of Wratten psychotically come to view their own opinions as Holy Writ.
I suspect Wg Cdr Cooke will be a can their Lordships will happily leave closed lest all sorts of worms slither out in these troubled times.
Bad L,
Yes.
Yes.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Pete and Misterploppy
I hear your points and understand them fully but the question to Wg Cdr Cooke about who ordered Sqn Ldr Burke to stop helping the BoI is still wholly releveant. I sat on a BoI as the air member in 1990 into a Hawk crash and as we could not prove 100% the cause we concluded "Cause not positively determined, most likely cause...." I am pretty sure with the evidence we had that our most likely cause was correct BUT that was not the point.
As in the Chinook crash with no ADR/CVR or survivors the only conclusion the BoI should have come to was "Cause not positively determined", which I understand was Wg Cdr Pulfords conclusion. I am sure Sqn Ldr Burkes experience and assistance to the BoI would have reinforced that conclusion which is why he was probably ordered to keep away.
Blame is not the key, be it the crew or the Airships, the key is preventing such an occurrenece again and as we don't know the cause that aspect failed and no doubt that was not acceptable to the MOD because of the tragic loss of life. If the MOD had acted responsibly by installing an ADR/CVR in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.
I agree there should be only one outcome now but that still doesn't stop a suitable use of words being used to show that the Higher Authority were simply wrong.
In my current Claim against the MOD a District Judge stated "I am highly critical of the Ministry of Defence in the way in which they have handled this claim up to now". The right words could be used they just take a bit of courage.
I hear your points and understand them fully but the question to Wg Cdr Cooke about who ordered Sqn Ldr Burke to stop helping the BoI is still wholly releveant. I sat on a BoI as the air member in 1990 into a Hawk crash and as we could not prove 100% the cause we concluded "Cause not positively determined, most likely cause...." I am pretty sure with the evidence we had that our most likely cause was correct BUT that was not the point.
As in the Chinook crash with no ADR/CVR or survivors the only conclusion the BoI should have come to was "Cause not positively determined", which I understand was Wg Cdr Pulfords conclusion. I am sure Sqn Ldr Burkes experience and assistance to the BoI would have reinforced that conclusion which is why he was probably ordered to keep away.
Blame is not the key, be it the crew or the Airships, the key is preventing such an occurrenece again and as we don't know the cause that aspect failed and no doubt that was not acceptable to the MOD because of the tragic loss of life. If the MOD had acted responsibly by installing an ADR/CVR in the first place they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.
I agree there should be only one outcome now but that still doesn't stop a suitable use of words being used to show that the Higher Authority were simply wrong.
In my current Claim against the MOD a District Judge stated "I am highly critical of the Ministry of Defence in the way in which they have handled this claim up to now". The right words could be used they just take a bit of courage.
