Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal
Agree your point that there should be NO DOUBT about a negligent finding before it is promulgated. But I would go further than that - no such finding should be made against a dead person without FIRM PROOF.
Flatus
You asked about putting a BOI report into the public domain. In my days the policy was quite clear. The whole aim of a BOI was to stop a similar accident from ever happening again. To that end, we needed witnesses to tell the honest truth. To secure that honesty, we promised everyone that their evidence would never be revealed outside MoD to anyone other than a coroner. If disciplinary action was subsequently to be taken within the RAF, the BOI could not be used in evidence. The disciplinary authority would have to set up a call for a separate summary of evidence. As a simple flight safety man, I liked this robust approach. However, this was blown apart by clever lawyers and now BOI proceedings are released into the public domain. Funny old thing, but now people are far less willing to tell the truth (or far more likely to have amnesia) after an accident.
How would I staff the sorry saga now? Let me see what the 'powerful' Commons committee has to say first, though I suspect that their views will have little long term effect.
Agree your point that there should be NO DOUBT about a negligent finding before it is promulgated. But I would go further than that - no such finding should be made against a dead person without FIRM PROOF.
Flatus
You asked about putting a BOI report into the public domain. In my days the policy was quite clear. The whole aim of a BOI was to stop a similar accident from ever happening again. To that end, we needed witnesses to tell the honest truth. To secure that honesty, we promised everyone that their evidence would never be revealed outside MoD to anyone other than a coroner. If disciplinary action was subsequently to be taken within the RAF, the BOI could not be used in evidence. The disciplinary authority would have to set up a call for a separate summary of evidence. As a simple flight safety man, I liked this robust approach. However, this was blown apart by clever lawyers and now BOI proceedings are released into the public domain. Funny old thing, but now people are far less willing to tell the truth (or far more likely to have amnesia) after an accident.
How would I staff the sorry saga now? Let me see what the 'powerful' Commons committee has to say first, though I suspect that their views will have little long term effect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geoff Hoon appears a little reluctant to provide a statement with regard to his meeting with Lord Chalfont and the Mull of Kintyre Group last week (15th). I have e-mailed him to ask his opinion of the meeting and how he will progress the issue. Reply will be posted here if/when I get it.
Should any of you like to ask him yourself, you can send him an e-mail via the following:
www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsek.htm#h
Then scroll down to his name and click on the envelope next to his name. I'm sure he will appreciate the contact. Go on.......you know it will make you feel good.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Should any of you like to ask him yourself, you can send him an e-mail via the following:
www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/almsek.htm#h
Then scroll down to his name and click on the envelope next to his name. I'm sure he will appreciate the contact. Go on.......you know it will make you feel good.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian,
Eeeh, you're right, it does make you feel better. Mind you, not being in the habit of joined-up writing it does take a while to pick your words carefully so as to make all the points without being (too) rude. Give me a post to PPRuNe any day - type first, think and worry later. Ah well, back to the Yorkshire School Playground thread on JB to restore my sanity. Thanks for the link - it's straight into the bookmarks.
Eeeh, you're right, it does make you feel better. Mind you, not being in the habit of joined-up writing it does take a while to pick your words carefully so as to make all the points without being (too) rude. Give me a post to PPRuNe any day - type first, think and worry later. Ah well, back to the Yorkshire School Playground thread on JB to restore my sanity. Thanks for the link - it's straight into the bookmarks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly, thanks to everyone who said Hi to my mate Geoff.
Secondly, I'm amazed I have got a link to work!!
The PAC report is due out soon, although it's not common knowledge when it will be available. Once it is available I'll send it as an attachment to Geoff with everyone's best wishes.
Now I've got the hang of it, I'll put a link to the PAC report on this site tomorrow. Damn! Have I said too much???
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Secondly, I'm amazed I have got a link to work!!
The PAC report is due out soon, although it's not common knowledge when it will be available. Once it is available I'll send it as an attachment to Geoff with everyone's best wishes.
Now I've got the hang of it, I'll put a link to the PAC report on this site tomorrow. Damn! Have I said too much???
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I said on the 'ZD576' thread, watch the MOD building closely and see how many people come flying out of the windows in an effort to escape the flying pooh. Those that aren't running will probably be sticking up umbrellas to avoid the fallout.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep, TB promised to look again. However, his interest will probably be OBE - overtaken by events. C4 news had a preview of the PAC report. Couldn't comment on content as it is embargoed until tomorrow, but said MOD would find its content difficult to shake off. Gave the impression lots of fullers earth will be needed to soak up the fallout!
I wonder if Day will use his "A big boy made me do it and ran way" excuse again.
Wait, out!
I wonder if Day will use his "A big boy made me do it and ran way" excuse again.
Wait, out!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just flashed up at the end of Newsnight Scotland - tomorrow's front pages:
Chinook Pilots vindicated after 6 and a half years of blame.
Pilots failed by MOD arrogance.
Lies, lies and more lies.
I wonder if Wrotten & Day will exercise any right to reply?
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 29 November 2000).]
Chinook Pilots vindicated after 6 and a half years of blame.
Pilots failed by MOD arrogance.
Lies, lies and more lies.
I wonder if Wrotten & Day will exercise any right to reply?
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 29 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just looking at the headlines - thought this would be of interest. From Sky News.
Thursday November 30, 12:01 AM
Blair To Reinvestigate Chinook Crash
Tony Blair said he was prepared to take a fresh look at the 1994 crash of an
RAFChinook helicopter, on the eve of a report expected to rubbish the original
verdict on the accident.
The two pilots were found guilty of gross negligence after their helicopter crashed into the
Mull of Kintyre in fog, killing them and the 27 MI5, army and RUC personnel aboard. The
Northern Irelandintelligence experts had been en route to a security conference in Scotland.
But the pilots families and MPs from all parties have repeatedly questioned the verdict and
called for a new inquest. They believe some of the newly-installed electronics on the
helicopter may have malfunctioned.
The Government has frequently refused, saying there is no new evidence.
Strong feeling
But Mr Blair on Wednesday pledged to examine the events again, even though they had been "looked at andpored
over a very, very long time".
In response to Liberal Democrat Ray Michies question at Prime Minister's Question Time, he said: "I can't off the
top of my head now offer you any moredetails or information since the last time we had this exchange, but again
Iwill go back and look at it and be in touch with you and tell you what theup-to-date position is I am aware of the
strength of feeling, because I receive representations onit directly myself, quite apart from the things that you say.
An MPs report due out on Thursday is expected to say the negligence finding is impossible to prove. The document
is likely to condemn the MoD for standing by the conclusions despite the lack of evidence, and add to the pressure
for a review.
Families encouraged
The report will give fresh impetus to thelong campaign by the families of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and
Rick Cook, who believe they were not at fault.
It may also leave the MoD open to charges of conflict of interest, and encourage conspiracy theories.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats have backed calls for a new inquiry, and will be encouraged by the report.
Thursday November 30, 12:01 AM
Blair To Reinvestigate Chinook Crash
Tony Blair said he was prepared to take a fresh look at the 1994 crash of an
RAFChinook helicopter, on the eve of a report expected to rubbish the original
verdict on the accident.
The two pilots were found guilty of gross negligence after their helicopter crashed into the
Mull of Kintyre in fog, killing them and the 27 MI5, army and RUC personnel aboard. The
Northern Irelandintelligence experts had been en route to a security conference in Scotland.
But the pilots families and MPs from all parties have repeatedly questioned the verdict and
called for a new inquest. They believe some of the newly-installed electronics on the
helicopter may have malfunctioned.
The Government has frequently refused, saying there is no new evidence.
Strong feeling
But Mr Blair on Wednesday pledged to examine the events again, even though they had been "looked at andpored
over a very, very long time".
In response to Liberal Democrat Ray Michies question at Prime Minister's Question Time, he said: "I can't off the
top of my head now offer you any moredetails or information since the last time we had this exchange, but again
Iwill go back and look at it and be in touch with you and tell you what theup-to-date position is I am aware of the
strength of feeling, because I receive representations onit directly myself, quite apart from the things that you say.
An MPs report due out on Thursday is expected to say the negligence finding is impossible to prove. The document
is likely to condemn the MoD for standing by the conclusions despite the lack of evidence, and add to the pressure
for a review.
Families encouraged
The report will give fresh impetus to thelong campaign by the families of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and
Rick Cook, who believe they were not at fault.
It may also leave the MoD open to charges of conflict of interest, and encourage conspiracy theories.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats have backed calls for a new inquiry, and will be encouraged by the report.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blimey. No sooner do I post the message and go to log-off, than the headline changes! Rest of the story stays the same, headline now reads....
CHINOOK VERDICT 'UNSUSTAINABLE'
A report into the original verdict following the
Chinook helicopter crash in 1994 which killed has
described the finding as "unsustainable".
MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee
said it was "impossible" to prove an RAF board of
inquiry's verdict that "gross negligence", on the part of
the two pilots, had caused the crash that killed all 29
people on board
CHINOOK VERDICT 'UNSUSTAINABLE'
A report into the original verdict following the
Chinook helicopter crash in 1994 which killed has
described the finding as "unsustainable".
MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee
said it was "impossible" to prove an RAF board of
inquiry's verdict that "gross negligence", on the part of
the two pilots, had caused the crash that killed all 29
people on board
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Scotsman - Front Page 30/11/00
Chinook pilots vindicated after six-and-a-half years of blame
AN INQUIRY into a fatal helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre reveals today that the two pilots blamed by the Ministry of Defence were victims of “a major miscarriage of justice” and calls for them to be cleared of guilt.
The MoD had stuck by its own “very unsatisfactory” and “unsustainable” verdict that Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper and Flt Lt Richard Cook were to blame, despite doubts about the safety of the Chinook MkII helicopter.
The powerful Commons’ public accounts committee found that at the time of the crash the Chinook was experiencing “repeated and unexplained” technical difficulties caused by its computer software.
In a scathing attack on the MoD’s “unwarrantable arrogance”, it declared that the department should have heeded the sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined.
Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted that this important body of people has come to this conclusion. I’m optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings.“There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” said Mr Hoon.
Tory MP David Davis, the committee’s chairman, called on the MoD to set aside its finding that the crash of the Chinook ZD-576 was caused by pilot error. His report provides the strongest evidence yet of the need for a rethink and will put pressure on the government to accept calls for a review.
It will also embarrass Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, who recently gave his backing to the MoD’s version of events. Speaking in July, he said: “All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry established that the Chinook was flying too fast, too low in bad weather.”
Both pilots and the 27 army and intelligence officers on board died on 2 June, 1994, when the helicopter carrying them to a conference in Inverness, crashed into a hill on Mull.
The MoD has repeatedly said it can see no reason to overturn the ruling by Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day that the pilots were guilty of “gross negligence”.
In March, the committee launched an inquiry into the Chinook MkII helicopter, which is the product of a £142 million contract undertaken by Boeing Helicopters to upgrade 32 MkI helicopters.
Its main conclusions are: The MoD did not realise there were problems with the helicopter’s computerised fuel system, known as Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC), until it was delivered for flight trials – despite six years of development and three in production. The late discovery of problems with the FADEC software was “unacceptable”.
The RAF’s finding of pilot error does not satisfy the burden of proof required, that there be no doubt whatsoever. The commitee found: “The technical data recovered from the wreckage was incomplete and does not, we believe, conclusively rule out technical malfunction as a potential cause of the crash. Negligence should only be found where it can be positively identified to have been the cause.
“Given the absence of cockpit voice and accident data recorders and the contrary view of the Scottish fatal accident inquiry conducted by Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, it is impossible to prove gross negligence in the case of ZD-576.”
The committee argues that the MoD should have appreciated the “superior standing” of the Scottish court and been guided by it.
It adds: “The department’s [MoD] preference for the results of their own procedures constitutes unwarrantable arrogance.
“The committee simply cannot understand why the department continues to defend the unsustainable finding of gross negligence and recommends it should be set aside.”
The process for convening and conducting RAF boards of inquiry is unsatisfactory and is open to allegations of conflict of interest.
In the case of the Chinook crash, the board was convened by and reported to senior officers who were also responsible for managing the Chinook fleet.
The MoD relied heavily on the expertise of the FADEC manufacturers in its analysis of the Chinook’s software problems. The committee recommends that the MoD also seeks independent technical expertise.
Mr Davis concluded: “In truth, we shall never known what happened on that fateful day at the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 but the evidence provided to the committee points quite clearly to a major miscarriage of justice. Despite the absence of definitive evidence, the department has doggedly stuck by the view that the crash was caused by pilot error.
“The committee’s report shows that this logic is flawed ... now is the time finally to put this matter right.”
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings. “There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” he said.
Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father, was delighted by the committee’s findings.
He said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted.” that this important body of people has taken all this trouble to come to this conclusion. I’m hopefully optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”
Independent peer Lord Chalfont, who leads a cross-party campaign group on the Chinook affair, said: “The Secretary of State for Defence could set aside the verdict himself. That’s what I would expect him to do.”
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats defence spokesman, said Mr Blair must intervene. He said: “The intransigence of the MoD is increasingly irrational. It is high time that the Prime Minister stepped in and put right the injustice done to the two pilots.”
Iain Duncan Smith, the Tories defence spokesman, said a Conservative government would immediately instruct the MoD to reopen its inquiry.
Tanya Thomson
The Scotsman
Thursday, 30th November 2000
http://www.scotsman.com
Chinook pilots vindicated after six-and-a-half years of blame
AN INQUIRY into a fatal helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre reveals today that the two pilots blamed by the Ministry of Defence were victims of “a major miscarriage of justice” and calls for them to be cleared of guilt.
The MoD had stuck by its own “very unsatisfactory” and “unsustainable” verdict that Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper and Flt Lt Richard Cook were to blame, despite doubts about the safety of the Chinook MkII helicopter.
The powerful Commons’ public accounts committee found that at the time of the crash the Chinook was experiencing “repeated and unexplained” technical difficulties caused by its computer software.
In a scathing attack on the MoD’s “unwarrantable arrogance”, it declared that the department should have heeded the sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined.
Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted that this important body of people has come to this conclusion. I’m optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings.“There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” said Mr Hoon.
Tory MP David Davis, the committee’s chairman, called on the MoD to set aside its finding that the crash of the Chinook ZD-576 was caused by pilot error. His report provides the strongest evidence yet of the need for a rethink and will put pressure on the government to accept calls for a review.
It will also embarrass Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, who recently gave his backing to the MoD’s version of events. Speaking in July, he said: “All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry established that the Chinook was flying too fast, too low in bad weather.”
Both pilots and the 27 army and intelligence officers on board died on 2 June, 1994, when the helicopter carrying them to a conference in Inverness, crashed into a hill on Mull.
The MoD has repeatedly said it can see no reason to overturn the ruling by Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day that the pilots were guilty of “gross negligence”.
In March, the committee launched an inquiry into the Chinook MkII helicopter, which is the product of a £142 million contract undertaken by Boeing Helicopters to upgrade 32 MkI helicopters.
Its main conclusions are: The MoD did not realise there were problems with the helicopter’s computerised fuel system, known as Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC), until it was delivered for flight trials – despite six years of development and three in production. The late discovery of problems with the FADEC software was “unacceptable”.
The RAF’s finding of pilot error does not satisfy the burden of proof required, that there be no doubt whatsoever. The commitee found: “The technical data recovered from the wreckage was incomplete and does not, we believe, conclusively rule out technical malfunction as a potential cause of the crash. Negligence should only be found where it can be positively identified to have been the cause.
“Given the absence of cockpit voice and accident data recorders and the contrary view of the Scottish fatal accident inquiry conducted by Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, it is impossible to prove gross negligence in the case of ZD-576.”
The committee argues that the MoD should have appreciated the “superior standing” of the Scottish court and been guided by it.
It adds: “The department’s [MoD] preference for the results of their own procedures constitutes unwarrantable arrogance.
“The committee simply cannot understand why the department continues to defend the unsustainable finding of gross negligence and recommends it should be set aside.”
The process for convening and conducting RAF boards of inquiry is unsatisfactory and is open to allegations of conflict of interest.
In the case of the Chinook crash, the board was convened by and reported to senior officers who were also responsible for managing the Chinook fleet.
The MoD relied heavily on the expertise of the FADEC manufacturers in its analysis of the Chinook’s software problems. The committee recommends that the MoD also seeks independent technical expertise.
Mr Davis concluded: “In truth, we shall never known what happened on that fateful day at the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 but the evidence provided to the committee points quite clearly to a major miscarriage of justice. Despite the absence of definitive evidence, the department has doggedly stuck by the view that the crash was caused by pilot error.
“The committee’s report shows that this logic is flawed ... now is the time finally to put this matter right.”
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, insisted that there was nothing in the committee’s report to cast doubt on the integrity of the MoD’s findings. “There is clearly a good deal of material in the report, but none of it constitutes new evidence,” he said.
Captain John Cook, Flt Lt Cook’s father, was delighted by the committee’s findings.
He said: “We’ve been saying this for six-and-a-half years. We’re absolutely delighted.” that this important body of people has taken all this trouble to come to this conclusion. I’m hopefully optimistic that the Government may take notice of it.”
Independent peer Lord Chalfont, who leads a cross-party campaign group on the Chinook affair, said: “The Secretary of State for Defence could set aside the verdict himself. That’s what I would expect him to do.”
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats defence spokesman, said Mr Blair must intervene. He said: “The intransigence of the MoD is increasingly irrational. It is high time that the Prime Minister stepped in and put right the injustice done to the two pilots.”
Iain Duncan Smith, the Tories defence spokesman, said a Conservative government would immediately instruct the MoD to reopen its inquiry.
Tanya Thomson
The Scotsman
Thursday, 30th November 2000
http://www.scotsman.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just watched Buffoon on the TV. He saw no reason to overturn the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry. Am I missing something here? I have seen the BOI and I do not recollect the words "gross negligence" in its conclusions. The Board was overruled by Wrotten and Day. Either Buffoon is what his name implies or less than honest. Methinks 3 resignations will be in order when the truth eventually comes out not 2.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BuffHoon being grilled on Sky News as I write. Says that there's nothing new in the report. That the BOI conclusion was 'conscientiously' reached. Would not admit that there is any remaining doubt despite having the facts firmly presented to him. He doesn't think that the PAC report was as thorough as the BOI, scathingly referred to it as being superficial.
A disappointing performance; Sky News had the upper hand throughout whilst Buff sat and sweated.
Wonder whether the Sky News reporters will be off down to Filton today to doorstep Sir William Wratten at Rolls-Royce?
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 November 2000).]
A disappointing performance; Sky News had the upper hand throughout whilst Buff sat and sweated.
Wonder whether the Sky News reporters will be off down to Filton today to doorstep Sir William Wratten at Rolls-Royce?
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I heard Hoon's comments reported on the Today programme this morning, then had the misfortune to watch him on BBC's Breakfast News.
All that crap about "no new evidence", "the report was superficial", I was closed to punching the TV !!
Of course there's no new evidence, it was all examined, the BOI found no evidence to back up the gross negligence, but Wratten and Day decided there was so passed the verdict. Why can't Hoon be made to see that ?
Hopefully the momentum will pick up even more now.
As an aside, if the BOI report is in the public domain has anyone got a URL for them ?
------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"
All that crap about "no new evidence", "the report was superficial", I was closed to punching the TV !!
Of course there's no new evidence, it was all examined, the BOI found no evidence to back up the gross negligence, but Wratten and Day decided there was so passed the verdict. Why can't Hoon be made to see that ?
Hopefully the momentum will pick up even more now.
As an aside, if the BOI report is in the public domain has anyone got a URL for them ?
------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having listened to BuffHoon's patronising distortion of the truth on the "Today" programme this morning I cannot remain an interested observer any longer. Sword is drawn, MP will be pestered. BuffHoon must go! He actually said that"a properly constituted BOI"found the pilots guilty of gross negligence. As I have understood all the many contributions to this and other sources, only Wrotten and Day came to this conclusion. Mr Hoon must resign.
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"