MOD rejects Chinook crash evidence
Guest
Posts: n/a
An IFR transit was out because Boscombe had raised the icing clearance to +6 from 0 (because of FADEC!!)
Also about a month after the accident a incident report came out about a Chinook nav problem when the kit was about 6 miles out.
Did they plan an offset to the Mull and then find a problem with the TANS had pointed them at the Mull.
I still think it's more likely some sort of mechanical problem that contributed to this. Without proof it should be impossible to claim gross negligence against anyone.
Also about a month after the accident a incident report came out about a Chinook nav problem when the kit was about 6 miles out.
Did they plan an offset to the Mull and then find a problem with the TANS had pointed them at the Mull.
I still think it's more likely some sort of mechanical problem that contributed to this. Without proof it should be impossible to claim gross negligence against anyone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mindstorm, I edited my previous post as you replied.
(was a current MK2 crew at the time)
Edit: the verdict stands---the only way now is to pull down every related command decision associated with this trip. The most important thing is to stress why no one took resposibility for all those VIPs on one airframe. Questions about IFR transits will reveal lack of supervision in the planning of this trip with its extremely high value cargo. Further enquiry by the public into all aspects of this VIP trip will ultimately
result in "grossly negligent" decision being found to be grossly negligent in itself.
[This message has been edited by psyclic (edited 19 June 2000).]
(was a current MK2 crew at the time)
Edit: the verdict stands---the only way now is to pull down every related command decision associated with this trip. The most important thing is to stress why no one took resposibility for all those VIPs on one airframe. Questions about IFR transits will reveal lack of supervision in the planning of this trip with its extremely high value cargo. Further enquiry by the public into all aspects of this VIP trip will ultimately
result in "grossly negligent" decision being found to be grossly negligent in itself.
[This message has been edited by psyclic (edited 19 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Loyalty to comrades is a laudable emotion, but clear heads make better judgements and bitterness destroys clarity.
Firstly, the President of a BOI has no 'get out' clause based on lack of evidence - he MUST arrive at the most likely cause, however slim the facts, because the lives of others may depend on his doing so to the best of his ability.
In this case, as I understand it, there was NO actual evidence of a malfunction. In fact, the evidence pointed to both engines being under normal power at the moment of impact.
Secondly, it is a long-standing RAF rule and tradition that the Captain of the aircraft is, alone, responsible for the safety of the flight. If you think about it, I am sure that no-one would really want it otherwise - it 'goes with the territory'.
Thus the conclusion of pilot error is the only viable alternative to an unallowed verdict that 'something unknown must have gone wrong' and, once that conclusion has been reached, the further finding of negligence (or gross negligence) is more or less inevitable.
This does not contravene any order (or QR). It is simply ADVICE to Presidents of BOI (in the FS Manual) that they should avoid findings of negligence if possible against those unable to defend themselves.
This may seem harsh, but is consistent with the facts (or lack of them) and no amount of speculation, point-scoring or teddy-throwing will alter anything unless there is evidence which actually alters the physical evidence recovered.
'The wings are pinned on your chest, but there are times when you need broad shoulders to wear 'em'.
Firstly, the President of a BOI has no 'get out' clause based on lack of evidence - he MUST arrive at the most likely cause, however slim the facts, because the lives of others may depend on his doing so to the best of his ability.
In this case, as I understand it, there was NO actual evidence of a malfunction. In fact, the evidence pointed to both engines being under normal power at the moment of impact.
Secondly, it is a long-standing RAF rule and tradition that the Captain of the aircraft is, alone, responsible for the safety of the flight. If you think about it, I am sure that no-one would really want it otherwise - it 'goes with the territory'.
Thus the conclusion of pilot error is the only viable alternative to an unallowed verdict that 'something unknown must have gone wrong' and, once that conclusion has been reached, the further finding of negligence (or gross negligence) is more or less inevitable.
This does not contravene any order (or QR). It is simply ADVICE to Presidents of BOI (in the FS Manual) that they should avoid findings of negligence if possible against those unable to defend themselves.
This may seem harsh, but is consistent with the facts (or lack of them) and no amount of speculation, point-scoring or teddy-throwing will alter anything unless there is evidence which actually alters the physical evidence recovered.
'The wings are pinned on your chest, but there are times when you need broad shoulders to wear 'em'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
droptank: I wasn’t suggesting that the BOI could be changed. They did a fantastic job given the circumstances. In the end, findings of negligence could not be found. That came later and by more senior officers. And if you look at the way Wratten presented the evidence in his article, it is difficult not to agree with him. The only other way to fit the facts is if both pilots had an agreed suicide pact. So where do the interested parties go now? They must continue to take hold and not let go until they have answers relating to the reasons for this particular sortie. Who insisted so many invaluable security personnel be flown together? How often did it occur? How could pilots so obviously capable of gross negligence be permitted to undertake one of these sorties? How many fishing rods and sets of golf clubs were on board? Why was this trip necessary? They may not ultimately get the answer they want but they will unearth evidence that might take some of the pain away.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Talking Radalt,
With regard to your reply to my post of 17 Jul, which you described as ridiculous. You are thinking rotary only, I was thinking in more general terms. The flight could have been planned (at Group level?) to go FW IFR, or at least with a FW backup. If the SH force was so strapped that no serviceable aircraft was available, this should have been reported up the chain of command and alternative arrangements made or the flight postponed or cancelled.
This is the arrogance and stupidity of which I speak. (No, not yours).
Initial bad use of grammar and so
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 19 June 2000).]
With regard to your reply to my post of 17 Jul, which you described as ridiculous. You are thinking rotary only, I was thinking in more general terms. The flight could have been planned (at Group level?) to go FW IFR, or at least with a FW backup. If the SH force was so strapped that no serviceable aircraft was available, this should have been reported up the chain of command and alternative arrangements made or the flight postponed or cancelled.
This is the arrogance and stupidity of which I speak. (No, not yours).
Initial bad use of grammar and so
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 19 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Droptank
You wear the pilots wings on your chest so you accept the responsibility - I agree but when you cannot defend yourself, the facts are inconclusive and any conclusions are speculation without CONCRETE evidence any negligence finding is unfounded.
You wear the pilots wings on your chest so you accept the responsibility - I agree but when you cannot defend yourself, the facts are inconclusive and any conclusions are speculation without CONCRETE evidence any negligence finding is unfounded.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Er...why do we have a chain of command and an authorisation procedure anyway?
Is it so that when it all goes pearshaped, we can blame the people doing the job or is it so the paper chase is so long winded, we don't find out the real reason for why an event happened?
Are those that auth'ed it being branded as 'grossly negligent' aswell?
Is it so that when it all goes pearshaped, we can blame the people doing the job or is it so the paper chase is so long winded, we don't find out the real reason for why an event happened?
Are those that auth'ed it being branded as 'grossly negligent' aswell?
