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
Chinook - Still Hitting Back
Just to continue from John Nichol's original thread.
For those who are new to the subject the original thread can be found on: www.pprune.org/cgbin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333
If you don't know me, the link may not work. If you do know me, could you put the correct link on please!!
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
For those who are new to the subject the original thread can be found on: www.pprune.org/cgbin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000333
If you don't know me, the link may not work. If you do know me, could you put the correct link on please!!
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Software error, old chap! Bit like a certain FADEC perhaps? Try http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=46&t=000333 .....I hope!
Keep up the good work!!
[From PPRuNe Dispatcher : the other Chinook threads are now in the Military Archive forum. To see them you'll need to set "show all topics" in the dropdown menu at the top left of the list of topics]
PS - link works satis. now!
[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
Keep up the good work!!
[From PPRuNe Dispatcher : the other Chinook threads are now in the Military Archive forum. To see them you'll need to set "show all topics" in the dropdown menu at the top left of the list of topics]
PS - link works satis. now!
[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
Brian,
good work on the website (fancy a job?)
re the role of the HofL inquiry - I think you might have slightly mis-understood what was said at the Group meeting last week (not difficult with the amount of legalistic phrases being thrown around!!):
There are 2 issues. The first will be for the committee to decide if the RAF acted illegally in making its "gross negligence" judgement. I can't remember the correct term but basically the Air Marshals acted outside their jurisdiction. This is purely a legal argument and could be settled in a short space of time. If that was the case it's endex for the RAF argument & the inquiry - the RAF were wrong, case closed.
The second, and more likely scenario, is that the inquiry hears all of the argumnets from both sides. They will then decide if the Air Marshals were WRONG (as opposed to acted illegally), on the evidence they had, to find the pilots guilty of gross negligence (manslaughter).
As has been explained on a number of occasions, the inquiry will not be questioning the integrity of Wratten & Day. it will decide if they made the right or wrong decision.
I am going to check this - and I stand to be corrected.
good work on the website (fancy a job?)
re the role of the HofL inquiry - I think you might have slightly mis-understood what was said at the Group meeting last week (not difficult with the amount of legalistic phrases being thrown around!!):
There are 2 issues. The first will be for the committee to decide if the RAF acted illegally in making its "gross negligence" judgement. I can't remember the correct term but basically the Air Marshals acted outside their jurisdiction. This is purely a legal argument and could be settled in a short space of time. If that was the case it's endex for the RAF argument & the inquiry - the RAF were wrong, case closed.
The second, and more likely scenario, is that the inquiry hears all of the argumnets from both sides. They will then decide if the Air Marshals were WRONG (as opposed to acted illegally), on the evidence they had, to find the pilots guilty of gross negligence (manslaughter).
As has been explained on a number of occasions, the inquiry will not be questioning the integrity of Wratten & Day. it will decide if they made the right or wrong decision.
I am going to check this - and I stand to be corrected.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question:
Most of the people who have posted on this topic incline to the opinion that while pilot error was present, the finding of “gross negligence” is insupportable.
If in the final analysis the verdict of gross negligence is overturned, it will not rehabilitate the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook one iota unless they are found wholly blameless. In the public mind, a finding that the pilots were culpable but not grossly negligent will be seeking to make too fine a distinction. If the cause of the accident was pilot error, the degree of error is perceived to be subsidiary to the consequences.
Newspaper reports reproduced here at the turn of the year spoke of vindication and exoneration. Is it the position that nothing short of complete vindication and exoneration from any blame will do? Or is it the purpose to rehabilitate the reputations of two good men, damned by a verdict of gross negligence, among their peers? What constitutes justice in this case?
Most of the people who have posted on this topic incline to the opinion that while pilot error was present, the finding of “gross negligence” is insupportable.
If in the final analysis the verdict of gross negligence is overturned, it will not rehabilitate the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook one iota unless they are found wholly blameless. In the public mind, a finding that the pilots were culpable but not grossly negligent will be seeking to make too fine a distinction. If the cause of the accident was pilot error, the degree of error is perceived to be subsidiary to the consequences.
Newspaper reports reproduced here at the turn of the year spoke of vindication and exoneration. Is it the position that nothing short of complete vindication and exoneration from any blame will do? Or is it the purpose to rehabilitate the reputations of two good men, damned by a verdict of gross negligence, among their peers? What constitutes justice in this case?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello John, great to see that you are continuing the very necessary public campaign to clear the names of Jonathan Tapper and John Cook. Yes ofcourse their names should be cleared with their reputations, not only for their own families and children - but for all those other aircrew who we hope to encourage in the future RAF!!? At the moment it appears that certain admin sections wonder why they are losing experienced aircrew so soon after training? We only need to read the reports from Wratten and Day to see why - when senior "officers" can condemn fine young men trying to do their jobs with antiquated equipment to safeguard perhaps something they themselves should have rectified previously. As a non pilot, I speak after reading every report ever written and attending ALL enquiries about the Mull of Kintyre accident that killed my husband. So please keep up the campaign to help the Tapper and Cook families they deserve better treatment than that callously dished out by Wratten and Day - I'm not sure if it has been clarified that these 2 actually overuled the enquiries that stated quite clearly that it was not possible to apportion blame to anyone because of lack of evidence?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a subject which has been pursued by Computer Weekly magazine for some time. This linkREQUNIQ=995034787&REQSESS=d128P6B1&2011REQEVENT=&CSESS=12471 15&CFLAV=1&CC A T=-9 9999&CCHAN=-99999&CARTT=-99999&CARTI=-99999&CPAGEN=Site%20Search&CSEARCH=&CPAGET=-99999&CTOPIC=&BR4_ACTION=http://www.cw 360.com
080/bin/bladerunner%3FREQUNIQ=99%26REQSESS=0%26REQAUTH=0&BR4_ACTION2 =&REQINT1=50&SEARCH_PAGENUMBER=1 highlights the articles they have been running with ref. to fadec.
Edited to try and get the link to work.
Thought I would try too (scratching head)! It worked OK but it NEEDS a user name and password - PPRuNe Pop
[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: FODA ]
PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]
080/bin/bladerunner%3FREQUNIQ=99%26REQSESS=0%26REQAUTH=0&BR4_ACTION2 =&REQINT1=50&SEARCH_PAGENUMBER=1 highlights the articles they have been running with ref. to fadec.Edited to try and get the link to work.
Thought I would try too (scratching head)! It worked OK but it NEEDS a user name and password - PPRuNe Pop
[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: FODA ]
PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Pop ]
FODA
When I try the link (modified to change the "=" after the first "URL" into a "]", if you're still with me...) it takes me to a login page that requires a user name and password. Not much use, I'm afraid. The Computer Weekly campaign is well known to many readers of this/these threads, and very informative.
Cheers
When I try the link (modified to change the "=" after the first "URL" into a "]", if you're still with me...) it takes me to a login page that requires a user name and password. Not much use, I'm afraid. The Computer Weekly campaign is well known to many readers of this/these threads, and very informative.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colchester UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The composition of the Select Committee appears to be what one would expect from Their Lordships House - cross party representation including members of the English and Scottish Bar.
As you are ALL no doubt aware, a BOI is an administrative proceeding and NOT a Court Martial. Although the evidence is taken on oath that evidence is not admissible in any subsequent legal proceedings: a separate Summary of Evidence has to be taken. The Pilots of ZD576 were NOT found “guilty of Manslaughter” but were deemed to have been “Grossly Negligent” in their conduct of the flight.
The basis of this finding was “ the crew of ZD 576 neither maintained Visual Flight Rules nor made a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules.”; a statement amply borne out by the deliberations of the BOI:-
para 16e
“The weather was suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre.”
para 51
“During this phase of the flight, to continue flying visually, the crew would have needed to adjust the aircraft’s height and airspeed to the prevailing cloudbase and visibility. The Board assessed that the possibility of the crew visually acquiring the lighthouse was remote, given the fact that it was in fog at the time. The hillside from lighthouse elevation to summit was also in cloud, although their were irregular areas of improved visibility up to 500m. The general weather close to the Mull was also very poor, with broken cloud at 200ft and 500m visibility below. Furthermore, any visual contact with the Mull or Lighthouse in the prevailing weather conditions should have prompted a reduction in height and speed well below those at impact.”
para 54
“ If the crew did not have visual contact with the Mull, and had decided not to attempt a landfall in the vicinity of the lighthouse, they would in the opinion of the Board, have been faced with 2 options: to turn away from land and attempt to route VFR towards Corran, parallel to their intended track but over the sea to the west of the Mull of Kintyre peninsula, until clear of the poor weather; or to climb to a safe height and fly over the Mull of Kintyre on track, accepting a change of in-flight conditions to IMC if necessary” NB At para 32c the BOI state “ in the forecast conditions, the icing clearance would have allowed an IMC pull-up from low level flight to Safety Altitude over the Mull of Kintyre.”
para 56
“ it would have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided the ground, whilst remaining on track, from any point beyond the position of the WP change until some 4 seconds prior to impact, if the crew had initiated a cyclic climb. After that point, assuming that its track and airspeed had remained constant, it would not have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided striking the terrain. The Board considered why the crew had not been alerted to their proximity to the ground, by either visual sighting or radar altimeter information, at any time from coasting - in until the initiation of the flare prior to impact. The lack of visual warning appears to indicate that the crew had lost all visual references and were in IMC during this phase of the flight. ----- The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch which could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground.” NB. At para 45b the Board concluded
“ that the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident.”
Finally, much has been made of the comment by Sir William Wratton that “ Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds prior to impact.” I suggest, although I do not know, that he may have been acknowledging the comment of the BOI at para 61 regarding their decision as to the most probable cause of the accident - “ the Board could not avoid a degree of speculation.”
As you are ALL no doubt aware, a BOI is an administrative proceeding and NOT a Court Martial. Although the evidence is taken on oath that evidence is not admissible in any subsequent legal proceedings: a separate Summary of Evidence has to be taken. The Pilots of ZD576 were NOT found “guilty of Manslaughter” but were deemed to have been “Grossly Negligent” in their conduct of the flight.
The basis of this finding was “ the crew of ZD 576 neither maintained Visual Flight Rules nor made a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules.”; a statement amply borne out by the deliberations of the BOI:-
para 16e
“The weather was suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre.”
para 51
“During this phase of the flight, to continue flying visually, the crew would have needed to adjust the aircraft’s height and airspeed to the prevailing cloudbase and visibility. The Board assessed that the possibility of the crew visually acquiring the lighthouse was remote, given the fact that it was in fog at the time. The hillside from lighthouse elevation to summit was also in cloud, although their were irregular areas of improved visibility up to 500m. The general weather close to the Mull was also very poor, with broken cloud at 200ft and 500m visibility below. Furthermore, any visual contact with the Mull or Lighthouse in the prevailing weather conditions should have prompted a reduction in height and speed well below those at impact.”
para 54
“ If the crew did not have visual contact with the Mull, and had decided not to attempt a landfall in the vicinity of the lighthouse, they would in the opinion of the Board, have been faced with 2 options: to turn away from land and attempt to route VFR towards Corran, parallel to their intended track but over the sea to the west of the Mull of Kintyre peninsula, until clear of the poor weather; or to climb to a safe height and fly over the Mull of Kintyre on track, accepting a change of in-flight conditions to IMC if necessary” NB At para 32c the BOI state “ in the forecast conditions, the icing clearance would have allowed an IMC pull-up from low level flight to Safety Altitude over the Mull of Kintyre.”
para 56
“ it would have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided the ground, whilst remaining on track, from any point beyond the position of the WP change until some 4 seconds prior to impact, if the crew had initiated a cyclic climb. After that point, assuming that its track and airspeed had remained constant, it would not have been possible for the aircraft to have avoided striking the terrain. The Board considered why the crew had not been alerted to their proximity to the ground, by either visual sighting or radar altimeter information, at any time from coasting - in until the initiation of the flare prior to impact. The lack of visual warning appears to indicate that the crew had lost all visual references and were in IMC during this phase of the flight. ----- The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch which could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground.” NB. At para 45b the Board concluded
“ that the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident.”
Finally, much has been made of the comment by Sir William Wratton that “ Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds prior to impact.” I suggest, although I do not know, that he may have been acknowledging the comment of the BOI at para 61 regarding their decision as to the most probable cause of the accident - “ the Board could not avoid a degree of speculation.”
Just a numbered other
Away for a week's break and all this to plough through.
K52 nice to see you are OK and welcome back
Susan, You are very brave, and I salute your fair minded approach to this matter. My sincere condolences to you.
The Select committee is legally based as the question of whether the BOI and its reviewing officers came to the correct conclusions is entirely a logical and legal one.
K52 seems a little rattled in that he immediately regurgitates his tired defence of Wratten and Day.
It will not bring down the RAF if (rightly IMHO) these two men were found to have made an error of judgement.
K52 nice to see you are OK and welcome back
Susan, You are very brave, and I salute your fair minded approach to this matter. My sincere condolences to you.
The Select committee is legally based as the question of whether the BOI and its reviewing officers came to the correct conclusions is entirely a logical and legal one.
K52 seems a little rattled in that he immediately regurgitates his tired defence of Wratten and Day.
It will not bring down the RAF if (rightly IMHO) these two men were found to have made an error of judgement.
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
JN,
I'm afraid I can't claim credit for the website (much as I would like to). It is being designed by a chap who made contact with me and offered his services. I'm not sure he wants to be named at the moment, although I do know he reads this thread. So to him, many thanks. To everyone else, I promise I'll let you all know when it is ready. I wish I had the skills to do the site but as you saw from my attempt at the link to your thread, I need a little more practice! Thanks also for clearing up the role of the Select Committee. I really must pay more attention!
t'aint natural,
My campaign has always been to have the unsustainable slur of negligence removed from the names of Jon and Rick.
Mrs Phoenix,
welcome to the thread. I hope the continuing campaign is not causing distress to the families, as that has never been the intention. May I also, many years after the accident, add my condolences. Also, thank you for your words of support.
FODA,
Glad to see it's not just me with regard to links!
Thud,
'fraid you left me behind there in your computer speak. Hope the job search is going well.
K52,
Again, I refer back to the 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' argument. There are areas of doubt, therefore you cannot find the pilots negligent.
Ark,
Welcome back.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited 'cos I still can't type.
[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
I'm afraid I can't claim credit for the website (much as I would like to). It is being designed by a chap who made contact with me and offered his services. I'm not sure he wants to be named at the moment, although I do know he reads this thread. So to him, many thanks. To everyone else, I promise I'll let you all know when it is ready. I wish I had the skills to do the site but as you saw from my attempt at the link to your thread, I need a little more practice! Thanks also for clearing up the role of the Select Committee. I really must pay more attention!
t'aint natural,
My campaign has always been to have the unsustainable slur of negligence removed from the names of Jon and Rick.
Mrs Phoenix,
welcome to the thread. I hope the continuing campaign is not causing distress to the families, as that has never been the intention. May I also, many years after the accident, add my condolences. Also, thank you for your words of support.
FODA,
Glad to see it's not just me with regard to links!
Thud,
'fraid you left me behind there in your computer speak. Hope the job search is going well.
K52,
Again, I refer back to the 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' argument. There are areas of doubt, therefore you cannot find the pilots negligent.
Ark,
Welcome back.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited 'cos I still can't type.
[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
Susan,
What a pleasure to see you here. I'm not sure who pointed you this way but the discussion you are reading has been going on for many years.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out for the others reading this forum but...
Detective Superintendent Ian Pheonix was the head of the NI Counter-Surveillance unit of the RUC. He was killed on ZD576. If you want to read a truly amazing life story then pick up "Phoenix - Policing The Shadows" published by Hodder & Stoughton.
Susan, I hope you don't mind me saying, but it is interesting that, even the widows of those on board the helicopter, believe that the RAF was wrong.
K52, you regurgitate the same argument you used many months ago. It is a viewpoint, I do not say you are wrong, but you have no EVIDENCE that you are right. Nothing you have posted is wrong. But you selectively quote para after para, you decline to mention the most important findings of the president of the BOI. He admitted everything he said was speculation. He refused to make a finding on the crew's actions.
There were 2 people who made the decision that plunged the RAF into the mire - Wratten & Day. Even those who are quoted in the BOI are now striving to distance themselves from the AM's decision.
Unlike others, I don't know who you are, I don't know why you are involved, but you seem to have an "RAF Selective View" on what was said in the BOI.
I don't say that the crew were not at fault, I point out that you have not one jot of evidence that they were.
What a pleasure to see you here. I'm not sure who pointed you this way but the discussion you are reading has been going on for many years.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out for the others reading this forum but...
Detective Superintendent Ian Pheonix was the head of the NI Counter-Surveillance unit of the RUC. He was killed on ZD576. If you want to read a truly amazing life story then pick up "Phoenix - Policing The Shadows" published by Hodder & Stoughton.
Susan, I hope you don't mind me saying, but it is interesting that, even the widows of those on board the helicopter, believe that the RAF was wrong.
K52, you regurgitate the same argument you used many months ago. It is a viewpoint, I do not say you are wrong, but you have no EVIDENCE that you are right. Nothing you have posted is wrong. But you selectively quote para after para, you decline to mention the most important findings of the president of the BOI. He admitted everything he said was speculation. He refused to make a finding on the crew's actions.
There were 2 people who made the decision that plunged the RAF into the mire - Wratten & Day. Even those who are quoted in the BOI are now striving to distance themselves from the AM's decision.
Unlike others, I don't know who you are, I don't know why you are involved, but you seem to have an "RAF Selective View" on what was said in the BOI.
I don't say that the crew were not at fault, I point out that you have not one jot of evidence that they were.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too would like to express my sincere condolences to Mrs Phoenix. I am delighted that she has decided to get involved here. I have secretly hoped for some time that members of the families affected would make themselves heard on this forum.
Like John I also wonder what is driving K52 - perhaps he is one of those responsible for bringing that particular mark of aircraft into service? Perhaps he is either Wratten or Day? In any event he has to justify his selective comments - which could be perceived as bias - to Mrs Phoenix and all the other family members who suffered loss of a loved one in the crash. No amount of argument will ever bring them back, but to increase the pain by solidly blaming people who may not be guilty is inhuman.
Edited for incorrect spelling of a name, with apologies.
[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: The Mistress ]
Like John I also wonder what is driving K52 - perhaps he is one of those responsible for bringing that particular mark of aircraft into service? Perhaps he is either Wratten or Day? In any event he has to justify his selective comments - which could be perceived as bias - to Mrs Phoenix and all the other family members who suffered loss of a loved one in the crash. No amount of argument will ever bring them back, but to increase the pain by solidly blaming people who may not be guilty is inhuman.
Edited for incorrect spelling of a name, with apologies.
[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: The Mistress ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou John et. al. for your kind words (I have received many in the last 7 years and in spite of the "moving on" it is good to know that people are not letting it go until justice is done). The book about Ian's life also brought many letters of support from all over the world. The point here is that it also encouraged people to voice their diverse concerns about the controversy surrounding the chinook crash and ongoing investigations. I have continued to support the exhausting fight by the Cook and Tapper families whenever possible, I know that my husband would wish that, with a pilot still in the family too, it is important. The frustration is that it is all so unnecessary. Day and Wratten could save face at any time by declaring their decision wrong in the light of more recent evidence. How Wratten can continue to write such defensive self protective articles (Scottish news papers earlier this year), knowing the suffering of those 2 families I cannot understand. The Times declined to publish a letter that I addressed to Bill Wratten shortly after the Public Accounts committee report that accused the M.O.D. of using "unwarranted arrogance" in its refusal to countenance the possibility that the negligent finding is unjust. It is the same indifferent arrogance that was shown to all of the families after the crash - forcing us at that time to launch a campaign for compensation to protect the many young families left behind. It amazes me that the government choses to set up yet more enquiries into the "rights" of Northern Ireland's convicted terrorists and yet refuses to set up one more enquiry into the rights of its fine young special forces pilots who did not want to fly defective chinook equipment in the first place!
No K52 - I note by your profile that you are a "retired" RAF pilot - I would suggest that you may not wish to be associated with the RAF administration and M.O.D. civil servants of today who put economic savings before the lives and reputations of its air crew. (see the cancellation by Hoon of yet more aircraft on the news board).
I do not think it is surprising that families of those killed in the crash wish to support the pilot's families as we all share a common grief and would not have expected "blame" to be so easily and inappropriately apportioned to 2 well trained S.F. pilots. My home in N.I. was often filled by these young men and I know only too well that their training and sense of duty would not have allowed the mistakes their seniors tried to fob off on them. Interestingly, at the initial enquiry I was incensed to hear one of the legal team supposedly representing some of the families(not mine) call S.F. pilots "cowboys" My personal plan to clear their reputations probably began then in the face of such ignorance. Keep up the work please.
No K52 - I note by your profile that you are a "retired" RAF pilot - I would suggest that you may not wish to be associated with the RAF administration and M.O.D. civil servants of today who put economic savings before the lives and reputations of its air crew. (see the cancellation by Hoon of yet more aircraft on the news board).
I do not think it is surprising that families of those killed in the crash wish to support the pilot's families as we all share a common grief and would not have expected "blame" to be so easily and inappropriately apportioned to 2 well trained S.F. pilots. My home in N.I. was often filled by these young men and I know only too well that their training and sense of duty would not have allowed the mistakes their seniors tried to fob off on them. Interestingly, at the initial enquiry I was incensed to hear one of the legal team supposedly representing some of the families(not mine) call S.F. pilots "cowboys" My personal plan to clear their reputations probably began then in the face of such ignorance. Keep up the work please.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I'm still unable to find the Computer Weekly material which apparently covers the question I asked. Can I perhaps direct it to John Nichol and Brian Dixon. Is it your position that pilot error was not a factor in the accident, that a rescinding of the "gross negligence" finding is insufficient, and Jon Tapper and Rick Cook should be wholly exonerated?
Edited for spelling
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: t'aint natural ]
Edited for spelling
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: t'aint natural ]
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
Susan,
That you can be so supportive of Rick and Jon is perhaps the best indication of the strength of feeling against this terrible injustice.
Having helped teach one of the pilots to fly helicopters and known them both, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about the characters involved.
It should be borne in mind that K52, by his own admission, has no helicopter experience but was apparently put in the position of an adviser to Mr Wratton, who as a jet pilot, similarly never qualified to fly helicopters and had little experience of Support Helicopter operations other than that given by his advisers.
Having flown for a number of years as an SH pilot and A2 QHI (and a QFI), including in the NI theatre of operations, I remain convinced that this was almost undoubtedly an accident caused by poor management. In the circumstances Rick and Jon's names could have been substituted by any number of other names, possibly my own included.
[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]
That you can be so supportive of Rick and Jon is perhaps the best indication of the strength of feeling against this terrible injustice.
Having helped teach one of the pilots to fly helicopters and known them both, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about the characters involved.
It should be borne in mind that K52, by his own admission, has no helicopter experience but was apparently put in the position of an adviser to Mr Wratton, who as a jet pilot, similarly never qualified to fly helicopters and had little experience of Support Helicopter operations other than that given by his advisers.
Having flown for a number of years as an SH pilot and A2 QHI (and a QFI), including in the NI theatre of operations, I remain convinced that this was almost undoubtedly an accident caused by poor management. In the circumstances Rick and Jon's names could have been substituted by any number of other names, possibly my own included.
[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]
'taint,
Although I have been involved in the case for 5 years only the two fathers, Mike Tapper & John Cook, can really answer the question about what verdict from the H of L they would be satisfied with.
From my own point of view though, my belief has always been that there has been nothing approaching the required evidence to support a finding of gross negligence. Much of the evidence now known was withheld from the BOI. The RAF suing the software manufacturers, the problems with US Chinooks and more.
Even without this evidence Wg Cdr Pulford would only say, despite considerable pressure from above, that the scenario of CFIT was only a possible one amongst many.
The reality of this case, as most right minded people agree, is that the cause is unknown. There are possiblities, there are theories. But the actual cause is, and will remain, unkown.
If you examine the many similar accidents and BOIs like this case, you will find that the most often used term is NPD - "not positively determined".
I suspect that, under a different regime to the one many of us worked for at that time, a finding of NPD would have been the outcome of Andy Pulford's honest & thorough BOI.
NPD is a verdict I personally would have no problem with. Of course, what I think, is irrelevant.
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
Although I have been involved in the case for 5 years only the two fathers, Mike Tapper & John Cook, can really answer the question about what verdict from the H of L they would be satisfied with.
From my own point of view though, my belief has always been that there has been nothing approaching the required evidence to support a finding of gross negligence. Much of the evidence now known was withheld from the BOI. The RAF suing the software manufacturers, the problems with US Chinooks and more.
Even without this evidence Wg Cdr Pulford would only say, despite considerable pressure from above, that the scenario of CFIT was only a possible one amongst many.
The reality of this case, as most right minded people agree, is that the cause is unknown. There are possiblities, there are theories. But the actual cause is, and will remain, unkown.
If you examine the many similar accidents and BOIs like this case, you will find that the most often used term is NPD - "not positively determined".
I suspect that, under a different regime to the one many of us worked for at that time, a finding of NPD would have been the outcome of Andy Pulford's honest & thorough BOI.
NPD is a verdict I personally would have no problem with. Of course, what I think, is irrelevant.
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
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
'taint,
I have to agree with the comments made by John. It really is a matter for the families as to what outcome they deem appropriate. My view is that a verdict of NPD is enough to remove the slur of negligence against Jon and Rick. There is no evidence to support such an accusation.
To answer your question: my position is that I don't know what happened. Then again, no one else does.
Hope this answers your question.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
ps I've just noticed that I'm an Addicted PpruNer - another sign that this has gone on far too long!
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]
I have to agree with the comments made by John. It really is a matter for the families as to what outcome they deem appropriate. My view is that a verdict of NPD is enough to remove the slur of negligence against Jon and Rick. There is no evidence to support such an accusation.
To answer your question: my position is that I don't know what happened. Then again, no one else does.
Hope this answers your question.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
ps I've just noticed that I'm an Addicted PpruNer - another sign that this has gone on far too long!
[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]