Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, and the same issue of "Pilot" also has an article on some obscure Internet organisation. Why they let this guff clutter up the print media, I don't know ;-)
http://www.pilotweb.co.uk/conaug00.htm
------------------
BossEyed 8-)
http://www.pilotweb.co.uk/conaug00.htm
------------------
BossEyed 8-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hoist-to-crew
The US Army chinook that turned inverted unexpectedly (not the IMC one) was thought to have been caused by contaminated hydraulic fluid in the Flt control system. This could have easily led to undemanded control inputs. This is much less likely to occur unexpectedly in RAF chinooks as the hydraulic fluid is regularly sampled and tested to ensure it is not contaminated.
As to the link with a FADEC code there is no thing the FADEC does that could IMHO affect the Flying control inputs.
Hope this dispels any confusion.
The US Army chinook that turned inverted unexpectedly (not the IMC one) was thought to have been caused by contaminated hydraulic fluid in the Flt control system. This could have easily led to undemanded control inputs. This is much less likely to occur unexpectedly in RAF chinooks as the hydraulic fluid is regularly sampled and tested to ensure it is not contaminated.
As to the link with a FADEC code there is no thing the FADEC does that could IMHO affect the Flying control inputs.
Hope this dispels any confusion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John, and all
A bit late I know for this one, but I’ll just put in my two pennorth.
Seems to me that we are all running around in circles trying to find fault with the aircraft (difficult with no FDR), with the Certification of the Mk 2 (fairly obvious), or with the Authorisation of the flight (looks OK)
Whatever the Cause, the crux of the problem I have with the BOI findings is the enormous difference between ERROR and GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Now I’m not saying that the guys screwed up, but if they did, it was an error, with many factors contributing, and NOT negligence, gross or otherwise.
So why would the MOD find Gross Negligence?
MONEY
I remember from my days in the Junglies, when the MOD lost its immunity from being pursued in the courts for damages. It was said at the time that from then on we pilots would now be personally responsible for any accident and any claims from pax.
The squadron response was ‘f*** that then, we ain’t carryin’ them then.’
The reply was that ‘Of course chaps we only mean that in the case of Gross Negligence, and you won’t be doing any of that will you?’
Very next major fatal and guess what.........
A friend’s relative was one of the hapless pax on this trip, and MOD is trying to limit their liability for damages, suggesting the family sue the pilots’ estates.
Apologies as a late scanner of the Military forum if this has been said before.
Remember.................
Only two things fly at night:
Bats and T*ats
A bit late I know for this one, but I’ll just put in my two pennorth.
Seems to me that we are all running around in circles trying to find fault with the aircraft (difficult with no FDR), with the Certification of the Mk 2 (fairly obvious), or with the Authorisation of the flight (looks OK)
Whatever the Cause, the crux of the problem I have with the BOI findings is the enormous difference between ERROR and GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Now I’m not saying that the guys screwed up, but if they did, it was an error, with many factors contributing, and NOT negligence, gross or otherwise.
So why would the MOD find Gross Negligence?
MONEY
I remember from my days in the Junglies, when the MOD lost its immunity from being pursued in the courts for damages. It was said at the time that from then on we pilots would now be personally responsible for any accident and any claims from pax.
The squadron response was ‘f*** that then, we ain’t carryin’ them then.’
The reply was that ‘Of course chaps we only mean that in the case of Gross Negligence, and you won’t be doing any of that will you?’
Very next major fatal and guess what.........
A friend’s relative was one of the hapless pax on this trip, and MOD is trying to limit their liability for damages, suggesting the family sue the pilots’ estates.
Apologies as a late scanner of the Military forum if this has been said before.
Remember.................
Only two things fly at night:
Bats and T*ats
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another late-comer to the site, having only read about PPrune in Pilot this month. Was on SF until shortly before the crash, and had been an instructor at Shawbury just as Jon was going through the course. Which should identify me to all concerned...
Nothing Chinook-specific to add - better people than me have stood up in court and done their best to correct Day's and Wrotten's dreadful misdeeds. I would like to point out, though, that there is a precedent for a botched intro-to-UK service of a new variant of an existing heli. Anyone remember when the Lynx Mk 7 came into service? Just like the Mk2 Chinook, there were no FRCs, no ODM and little else of use to the front-line pilots. I'd love to see what was made of all this in the Army's BofI/investigation into the Mk7 crash at SPTA around mid-89. Were any lessons drawn from this mishandled intro which could have saved HM Forces further grief at Chinook MLU time?
Nothing Chinook-specific to add - better people than me have stood up in court and done their best to correct Day's and Wrotten's dreadful misdeeds. I would like to point out, though, that there is a precedent for a botched intro-to-UK service of a new variant of an existing heli. Anyone remember when the Lynx Mk 7 came into service? Just like the Mk2 Chinook, there were no FRCs, no ODM and little else of use to the front-line pilots. I'd love to see what was made of all this in the Army's BofI/investigation into the Mk7 crash at SPTA around mid-89. Were any lessons drawn from this mishandled intro which could have saved HM Forces further grief at Chinook MLU time?
Guest
Posts: n/a
May I ask a question about this and at the same time bring this topic to the fore again?
I wasn't sure which was the best of the many threads dealing with the subject to use so I chose JN's.
I don't know anything about this accident or the Chinook but I did do a few BOI's in my time and I know the countryside where it happened. And I haven't read Bill Wratten's article 'cos its not on the Web yet. All I know for sure is that I have always felt the same anger and frustration as you all about the injustice of branding the pilots as "grossly negligent" without substantial supporting evidence.
But I don't know what "gross negligence" is in this context. It sounds to me like an emotive description. Is there a way in which a BOI could arrive at that conclusion through the weighing of evidence? Had a pilot survived, would he have faced a Court Martial charge of "gross negligence" as defined in MAFL? If so, how is it defined legally?
In my day (sorry!) I seem to remember that there were two kinds of negligence at which BOIs could arrive.
Assume that gross and culpable negligence are the same. Since we can never know what situation the crew had to deal with, how can be sure that they had the skill to deal with it? We can't. I follows that, since we can't be sure that they had the skill (in spite of their very high status), how can they be found culpably (or grossly) negligent?
Has all this changed? What are the lower categories of negligence than "gross"? And is there a new "flowpath" through which a BOI can "navigate" using the evidence to arrive at conclusions about negligence?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this.
fob
[This message has been edited by fobotcso (edited 03 August 2000).]
I wasn't sure which was the best of the many threads dealing with the subject to use so I chose JN's.
I don't know anything about this accident or the Chinook but I did do a few BOI's in my time and I know the countryside where it happened. And I haven't read Bill Wratten's article 'cos its not on the Web yet. All I know for sure is that I have always felt the same anger and frustration as you all about the injustice of branding the pilots as "grossly negligent" without substantial supporting evidence.
But I don't know what "gross negligence" is in this context. It sounds to me like an emotive description. Is there a way in which a BOI could arrive at that conclusion through the weighing of evidence? Had a pilot survived, would he have faced a Court Martial charge of "gross negligence" as defined in MAFL? If so, how is it defined legally?
In my day (sorry!) I seem to remember that there were two kinds of negligence at which BOIs could arrive.
- Excusable negligence; where the person - later the accused - had tried to do something for which he did not have the skill (but didn't realise that he didn't have the skill). This was always a difficult one to wrestle with.
- Culpable (blameworthy) negligence where the accused had failed to exercise a skill which he possessed and therefore caused the accident (or whatever event brought about the BOI). MAFL contained a suitable Section which I have long since forgotten.
Assume that gross and culpable negligence are the same. Since we can never know what situation the crew had to deal with, how can be sure that they had the skill to deal with it? We can't. I follows that, since we can't be sure that they had the skill (in spite of their very high status), how can they be found culpably (or grossly) negligent?
Has all this changed? What are the lower categories of negligence than "gross"? And is there a new "flowpath" through which a BOI can "navigate" using the evidence to arrive at conclusions about negligence?
I would be grateful if someone could explain this.
fob
[This message has been edited by fobotcso (edited 03 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
John, I was with the boys on the day and walked out to the ac with John Tapper, I'm not happy with the BOI and most of the sqn boys agree, however , just accept it. We all have our opinions, the system will NEVER accept that it was wrong, let them rest in peace knowing that those who matter will never doubt them
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jayteeto
As far as I can see, you've walked out on Jon Tapper, not with him.
Do you seriously believe that Jon and Rick deliberately flew into the Mull of Kintyre? If not you cannot support the findings of the BoI.
I, and many others, will not give up on Jon or Rick until the their names have been cleared. I'm not scared of the challenge.
Should I wish you luck in any forthcoming promotion?????
As far as I can see, you've walked out on Jon Tapper, not with him.
Do you seriously believe that Jon and Rick deliberately flew into the Mull of Kintyre? If not you cannot support the findings of the BoI.
I, and many others, will not give up on Jon or Rick until the their names have been cleared. I'm not scared of the challenge.
Should I wish you luck in any forthcoming promotion?????
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian and others,
Lets please again clarify one thing. I am certain you are personally aware of this but lets ensure that others reading this are too. The BOI did NOT find reason to blame the crew. This was over-ruled at a higher level. The over-ruling was done by officers with their own careers possibly at stake if further and broader investigation were to take place. In this case the military system of investigating its own accidents is flawed.
The background to the aircraft being in service at all needs further investigation because this was an organisational accident waiting to happen if ever there was one. The fact that it happened to any particular crew does not change that.
Those with a personal axe to grind about the relative flying abilities of groups of individuals should keep their noses out until they at least have read the report of the BOI and have a basic grasp of the factors involved.
Someone is being protected and it smells bad.
Lets please again clarify one thing. I am certain you are personally aware of this but lets ensure that others reading this are too. The BOI did NOT find reason to blame the crew. This was over-ruled at a higher level. The over-ruling was done by officers with their own careers possibly at stake if further and broader investigation were to take place. In this case the military system of investigating its own accidents is flawed.
The background to the aircraft being in service at all needs further investigation because this was an organisational accident waiting to happen if ever there was one. The fact that it happened to any particular crew does not change that.
Those with a personal axe to grind about the relative flying abilities of groups of individuals should keep their noses out until they at least have read the report of the BOI and have a basic grasp of the factors involved.
Someone is being protected and it smells bad.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ShyTorque
Yep, point well made. I did know that the findings of the BoI were over-ruled by self serving individuals. I just got carried away as a result of the posting by jayteeto.
I, for one, will not allow this matter to just fade away. I recall Rick used to fight with the Boss if he believed in something. So I don't for one minute think he would have let this go if someone else had been in his seat.
A gentle reminder to get your MPs to register their support for the Mull of Kintyre Group via the office of Lord Chalfont is again slipped in as a subliminal message!
Regards
Brian
Yep, point well made. I did know that the findings of the BoI were over-ruled by self serving individuals. I just got carried away as a result of the posting by jayteeto.
I, for one, will not allow this matter to just fade away. I recall Rick used to fight with the Boss if he believed in something. So I don't for one minute think he would have let this go if someone else had been in his seat.
A gentle reminder to get your MPs to register their support for the Mull of Kintyre Group via the office of Lord Chalfont is again slipped in as a subliminal message!
Regards
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
Was this information known? (apologies if duplication). Found on Reuters. I can post the full article if wanted...
Jane's Defence Weekly
24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.
By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters...
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year....
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source...Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago....
Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000
Jane's Defence Weekly
24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.
By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters...
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year....
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source...Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago....
Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian - Herewith full article as req (can't give access instructions as Reuters is a subscription service).
I also have two other Chinook articles of interest which I will post separately. I search Reuters every day for work purposes & I'm happy to scan for relevant articles and post if other ppruners would be interested.
Jane's Defence Weekly
24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.
By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters. Although the first helicopter flew in October 1998 and initial delivery was due last February but senior officers say it will be up to two years before they will enter service.
Manufactured by Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the aircraft were configured for role in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Speaking at a conference in London last week, Air Vice Marshal David Niven, the commander of the UK Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) said that he "expects the Chinooks to be in service in the next 18 months to two years".
The JHC is keen to have the helicopters which have in-flight refuelling, forward looking infrared and extra fuel because they are capable of self-deployment.
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year. The Mk3 will then have to undertake military aircraft release by the UK's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency before entering operational service.
British Army commanders are, however, known to be "deeply frustrated" at the late arrival of the helicopter which they regard as one of the most important assets to special forces operations. Currently, modified rather than purpose-built Chinooks are used.
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source. This is not the first time that Chinook build-standards have been questioned by the UK procurement authorities. Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago.
When they enter service in 2002, Jane's Defence Weekly understands the Chinook Mk3s will be based at RAF Odiham in southern England, releasing the locally upgraded Chinook HC 2s to return to the support role. This "can't come too soon" according to the JHC which is facing a perceived shortfall in airframes because of the new key tasks created by the formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the commissioning of two new amphibious ships and the late running Merlin Mk3 programme.
Photograph: Special forces amphibious operations trials were carried out "several years ago" in the UK to prove the ability to operate small boats from a waterborne Boeing Chinook HC 2 (Source: DERA).
Volume 034/004
(c) Jane's Information Group Limited 2000.
For more information please contact Janes:
Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000
I also have two other Chinook articles of interest which I will post separately. I search Reuters every day for work purposes & I'm happy to scan for relevant articles and post if other ppruners would be interested.
Jane's Defence Weekly
24/07/2000 UK: UK REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW CHINOOKS.
By PAUL BEAVER JDW Special Correspondent London.
UK defence officials have formally refused to accept delivery of the first of eight special operations configured Boeing Chinook Mk3 helicopters. Although the first helicopter flew in October 1998 and initial delivery was due last February but senior officers say it will be up to two years before they will enter service.
Manufactured by Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the aircraft were configured for role in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Speaking at a conference in London last week, Air Vice Marshal David Niven, the commander of the UK Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) said that he "expects the Chinooks to be in service in the next 18 months to two years".
The JHC is keen to have the helicopters which have in-flight refuelling, forward looking infrared and extra fuel because they are capable of self-deployment.
The UK Chinooks will be not compatible with the US Army Special Operations Command's MH-47E Chinooks because there have been several changes to the equipment carried, including weather radar, radar warning receivers, communications sets and navigation sensors. This is thought to have caused some of the problems currently being experienced by Boeing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) the delay has been caused by software problems. Although they are regarded as "minor problems", the Chinook Mk3 programme is "not on a critical path to achieving its introduction into service".
A Boeing spokesman denied there is a major problem with the programme adding that the helicopters are nearing completion with the first due to be delivered at the end of the year. The Mk3 will then have to undertake military aircraft release by the UK's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency before entering operational service.
British Army commanders are, however, known to be "deeply frustrated" at the late arrival of the helicopter which they regard as one of the most important assets to special forces operations. Currently, modified rather than purpose-built Chinooks are used.
"The eight helicopters are currently parked at the factory awaiting US government assurances on their build quality," according to a senior MoD source. This is not the first time that Chinook build-standards have been questioned by the UK procurement authorities. Recently, Boeing paid damages to the UK for problems with the late delivery and software of the Mk2 several years ago.
When they enter service in 2002, Jane's Defence Weekly understands the Chinook Mk3s will be based at RAF Odiham in southern England, releasing the locally upgraded Chinook HC 2s to return to the support role. This "can't come too soon" according to the JHC which is facing a perceived shortfall in airframes because of the new key tasks created by the formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the commissioning of two new amphibious ships and the late running Merlin Mk3 programme.
Photograph: Special forces amphibious operations trials were carried out "several years ago" in the UK to prove the ability to operate small boats from a waterborne Boeing Chinook HC 2 (Source: DERA).
Volume 034/004
(c) Jane's Information Group Limited 2000.
For more information please contact Janes:
Phone +44 (0) 181 700 3700
Fax + 44 (0) 181 763 1006
e-mail [email protected]
internet http://www.janes.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 24/07/2000
Guest
Posts: n/a
There's quite a bit here, but it is of interest. The second article regarding the reopening of the enquiry is a few days old, but I do not seem to have seen this elsewhere. Again, sorry if this information is already known about.
Dow Jones Business News
03/08/2000 USA: BOEING TO PAY U.S. GOVERNMENT $54 MILLION IN CHINOOK HELICOPTER SETTLEMENT.
By Jerry Guidera.
WASHINGTON
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON - (Dow Jones)-Boeing Co. agreed to pay the government $54 million to settle claims that the company installed faulty gear systems in one of the Army's principal troop and equipment transport helicopters, the Justice Department said.
Five servicemen have been killed in three gear-related accidents since the Army began using the Chinook helicopters about 15 years ago. Since January, the Army has grounded for repairs a number of the fleet of 33 CH-47D helicopters because of additional defects found in the gear systems.
Boeing (BA), Seattle, used two subcontractors - Litton Precision Gear of Bedford Park, Ill., and the now-defunct Speco Corp. of Springfield, Ohio - in the manufacture of the transmission gears. Speco paid the government $7.5 million in 1997 to address its role in the manufacture of the gears as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
In the settlement, Boeing admitted no fault or blame in the accidents, but agreed to pay for repairs to the helicopters and the legal fees of the government as well as lawyers for Brett Roby, the whistleblower who brought the case to the attention of federal officials.
"The company entered into the settlement agreement because resolving this protracted litigation is in the best interest of both Boeing and its U.S. Army customer," Boeing said in a statement.
Mr. Roby will receive $10.5 million of the total payments.
The latest settlement follows reports that federal regulators are seeking a $1.2 million fine against Boeing for lax manufacturing controls as well as delays in notifying the government about potential structural problems on jetliners in service, a significantly higher penalty than the government usually seeks in such cases.
(This story was originally published by Dow Jones Newswires).
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS 03/08/2000
----------------
Scotland on Sunday
23/07/2000 UK: MOD PLAN FOR NEW CHINOOK INQUIRY.
By Peter Laing.
THE Ministry of Defence is secretly paving the way for a new inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
MoD officials, under pressure from Labour ministers, have devised a face-saving formula allowing them to execute a massive U-turn by reopening the inquiry into the crash without embarrassing RAF chiefs, who have blamed the disaster on pilot error.
Campaigners trying to clear the names of the two pilots concerned have received private suggestions that they should re-present their existing case as "new evidence".
This would give the MoD a valid reason to reopen the inquiry without appearing to overrule Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who insist the pilots are blamed for gross negligence.
Wratten and Day overruled the original finding of the RAF board of inquiry, which said that no blame could be apportioned for the June 1994 crash, which claimed the lives of 25 intelligence experts and four crew.
Wratten and Day accused the pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, of ignoring aviation rules by flying into bad weather at low altitude before they hit the Mull. Their verdict came despite a sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined, as well as increasing evidence of serious software problems with the Mark II Chinook which had been brought into service by Day.
It also appeared to contradict RAF rules which say that a finding of gross negligence can only be reached if there is absolutely no doubt about the cause of a crash.
While Wratten and Day have consistently refused to change their minds, Labour ministers are now understood to be increasingly concerned about facing heavy pressure over an MoD decision taken under a previous government.
Ten days ago Tony Blair was forced to defend the MoD's position at Prime Minister's Questions, and he is to meet a high-profile cross-party group of campaigners including Martin Bell, the Independent MP for Tatton, and Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman.
Blair and other ministers have said they will consider any new evidence about the crash, but have previously insisted that nothing which has emerged since the crash constitutes new material.
But behind the scenes, MoD officials are looking at ways of allowing the material gathered by campaigners to be classified as new, allowing them to reopen the inquiry.
Officials have also ended years of frosty relations with campaigners and are now actively wooing them. It is understood one family member was recently invited to MoD headquarters at Whitehall, where he spent two hours with a senior civil servant before being taken to lunch.
Campaigners believe the government has been backed into a corner by the Chinook controversy and is desperately looking for a way out.
A source close to the campaign said: "The Ministry of Defence have reached a situation where they would like to reopen it but can't do so without considerable loss of face for the Air Marshalls.
"They are looking for something which would give them a pretext for reopening the inquiry. In order to do that they must have what they would call new evidence. They have asked the campaigners to put together a package of information which can be regarded as new."
It is understood campaigners are preparing a document arguing for reopening the inquiry. It will be accompanied by documentary evidence and is likely be presented to the MoD in early August.
Among the issues raised will be the evidence of yachtsman Mark Holbrook, who was the last person to see the Chinook before it crashed. The Air Marshalls argue the Chinook was flown into bad weather at high speed and low altitude.
But in a recent Scotland on Sunday article, Holbrook said the weather was patchy rather than uniformly bad and there was "no doubt" the pilots could see the Mull.
Lord Chalfont, a leading figure in the campaign to clear the pilots, declined to comment in detail on the progress being made.
He confirmed: "I welcome their offer to look at any new evidence and I am taking steps to respond at once."
Mike Tapper, father of Jonathon, said: "This request for new evidence is certainly very important and something we are taking very seriously."
Dow Jones Business News
03/08/2000 USA: BOEING TO PAY U.S. GOVERNMENT $54 MILLION IN CHINOOK HELICOPTER SETTLEMENT.
By Jerry Guidera.
WASHINGTON
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON - (Dow Jones)-Boeing Co. agreed to pay the government $54 million to settle claims that the company installed faulty gear systems in one of the Army's principal troop and equipment transport helicopters, the Justice Department said.
Five servicemen have been killed in three gear-related accidents since the Army began using the Chinook helicopters about 15 years ago. Since January, the Army has grounded for repairs a number of the fleet of 33 CH-47D helicopters because of additional defects found in the gear systems.
Boeing (BA), Seattle, used two subcontractors - Litton Precision Gear of Bedford Park, Ill., and the now-defunct Speco Corp. of Springfield, Ohio - in the manufacture of the transmission gears. Speco paid the government $7.5 million in 1997 to address its role in the manufacture of the gears as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
In the settlement, Boeing admitted no fault or blame in the accidents, but agreed to pay for repairs to the helicopters and the legal fees of the government as well as lawyers for Brett Roby, the whistleblower who brought the case to the attention of federal officials.
"The company entered into the settlement agreement because resolving this protracted litigation is in the best interest of both Boeing and its U.S. Army customer," Boeing said in a statement.
Mr. Roby will receive $10.5 million of the total payments.
The latest settlement follows reports that federal regulators are seeking a $1.2 million fine against Boeing for lax manufacturing controls as well as delays in notifying the government about potential structural problems on jetliners in service, a significantly higher penalty than the government usually seeks in such cases.
(This story was originally published by Dow Jones Newswires).
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS 03/08/2000
----------------
Scotland on Sunday
23/07/2000 UK: MOD PLAN FOR NEW CHINOOK INQUIRY.
By Peter Laing.
THE Ministry of Defence is secretly paving the way for a new inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
MoD officials, under pressure from Labour ministers, have devised a face-saving formula allowing them to execute a massive U-turn by reopening the inquiry into the crash without embarrassing RAF chiefs, who have blamed the disaster on pilot error.
Campaigners trying to clear the names of the two pilots concerned have received private suggestions that they should re-present their existing case as "new evidence".
This would give the MoD a valid reason to reopen the inquiry without appearing to overrule Air Marshalls Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who insist the pilots are blamed for gross negligence.
Wratten and Day overruled the original finding of the RAF board of inquiry, which said that no blame could be apportioned for the June 1994 crash, which claimed the lives of 25 intelligence experts and four crew.
Wratten and Day accused the pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, of ignoring aviation rules by flying into bad weather at low altitude before they hit the Mull. Their verdict came despite a sheriff court ruling that the cause of the crash could not be determined, as well as increasing evidence of serious software problems with the Mark II Chinook which had been brought into service by Day.
It also appeared to contradict RAF rules which say that a finding of gross negligence can only be reached if there is absolutely no doubt about the cause of a crash.
While Wratten and Day have consistently refused to change their minds, Labour ministers are now understood to be increasingly concerned about facing heavy pressure over an MoD decision taken under a previous government.
Ten days ago Tony Blair was forced to defend the MoD's position at Prime Minister's Questions, and he is to meet a high-profile cross-party group of campaigners including Martin Bell, the Independent MP for Tatton, and Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman.
Blair and other ministers have said they will consider any new evidence about the crash, but have previously insisted that nothing which has emerged since the crash constitutes new material.
But behind the scenes, MoD officials are looking at ways of allowing the material gathered by campaigners to be classified as new, allowing them to reopen the inquiry.
Officials have also ended years of frosty relations with campaigners and are now actively wooing them. It is understood one family member was recently invited to MoD headquarters at Whitehall, where he spent two hours with a senior civil servant before being taken to lunch.
Campaigners believe the government has been backed into a corner by the Chinook controversy and is desperately looking for a way out.
A source close to the campaign said: "The Ministry of Defence have reached a situation where they would like to reopen it but can't do so without considerable loss of face for the Air Marshalls.
"They are looking for something which would give them a pretext for reopening the inquiry. In order to do that they must have what they would call new evidence. They have asked the campaigners to put together a package of information which can be regarded as new."
It is understood campaigners are preparing a document arguing for reopening the inquiry. It will be accompanied by documentary evidence and is likely be presented to the MoD in early August.
Among the issues raised will be the evidence of yachtsman Mark Holbrook, who was the last person to see the Chinook before it crashed. The Air Marshalls argue the Chinook was flown into bad weather at high speed and low altitude.
But in a recent Scotland on Sunday article, Holbrook said the weather was patchy rather than uniformly bad and there was "no doubt" the pilots could see the Mull.
Lord Chalfont, a leading figure in the campaign to clear the pilots, declined to comment in detail on the progress being made.
He confirmed: "I welcome their offer to look at any new evidence and I am taking steps to respond at once."
Mike Tapper, father of Jonathon, said: "This request for new evidence is certainly very important and something we are taking very seriously."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Both articles very interesting - thanks for making them available to those of us stuck in info-starved Far Eastern locations. I wonder how, if the government succeeds in finding a way to reopen the enquiry in a face-saving manner, they'll avoid risking exposing Day and Wratten to accusations of gross negligence for failing to carry out their duties correctly. Academic, really - they'll still be alive, unlike the crew whose reputations they've so actively sought to sully.
My gratitude to all who've kept this one running, despite the opposition both from the chain of command and other sources.
My gratitude to all who've kept this one running, despite the opposition both from the chain of command and other sources.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This forum has thrown up a great number of valid arguments one way or the other. I am afraid, however, the public interest (by that I mean the press) is just not there. Many of us would like to see a far reaching enquiry (independant, a mix of informed military and civilian experts) - but don't hold your breath.
Also, the politicians have not a lot to gain for themselves by opening an enquiry, unlike Hillsborough, where the press frenzy (particularly the gutter press) went on unabated for years - and good publicity is there to be had.
Unhappily for the families of the crew, I don't hold out much hope for their efforts. Having been involved in the aftermath of several fatal accidents in my time; I know how important it is for them to come out of the tragedy knowing their loved ones are effectively blameless. If this is proved to be the case, they are much comforted by BOI findings, which are invariably convey unofficially to them.
I wish them luck for the future.
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
Also, the politicians have not a lot to gain for themselves by opening an enquiry, unlike Hillsborough, where the press frenzy (particularly the gutter press) went on unabated for years - and good publicity is there to be had.
Unhappily for the families of the crew, I don't hold out much hope for their efforts. Having been involved in the aftermath of several fatal accidents in my time; I know how important it is for them to come out of the tragedy knowing their loved ones are effectively blameless. If this is proved to be the case, they are much comforted by BOI findings, which are invariably convey unofficially to them.
I wish them luck for the future.
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WebPilot
Consider yourself promoted to top banana. Thank you very much for the articles. Please keep them coming. This all helps in building the jigsaw.
Thud and Blunder.
Why should the Government protect Wratten and Day? If they made a mistake let them answer for it. At least they're alive to do so. I recognise that the work Rick, Jon, Kev and Graham did (plus the pax) was risky. Was the risk worth taking though? Surely a re-examination of the BoI (in particular the review process) is in order.
Mighty Hunter
Your Supremeness. Gutter press assisted or not, we will not go away and will continue to harry the Government and MoD at every given opportunity. Award winning journalists such as Tony Collins of Computer Weekly will continue to research and publish valuable evidence.
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Consider yourself promoted to top banana. Thank you very much for the articles. Please keep them coming. This all helps in building the jigsaw.
Thud and Blunder.
Why should the Government protect Wratten and Day? If they made a mistake let them answer for it. At least they're alive to do so. I recognise that the work Rick, Jon, Kev and Graham did (plus the pax) was risky. Was the risk worth taking though? Surely a re-examination of the BoI (in particular the review process) is in order.
Mighty Hunter
Your Supremeness. Gutter press assisted or not, we will not go away and will continue to harry the Government and MoD at every given opportunity. Award winning journalists such as Tony Collins of Computer Weekly will continue to research and publish valuable evidence.
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian Dixon
My fellow supremeness, I apologise without reservation if my remarks appeared to advocate throwing in the towel. Far from it. I was expressing the view that from experience, the policy appears to be 'don't reply and it will go away'. How many times have you read articles/letters in the press just begging for an answer. How many times have we all sat there thinking 'That's not right' or 'the silly pratt (author) doesn't know what he's talking about'. And what do we get? Nothing. Not a squeak.
I have a hell of a lot of time for guys like John Nichol - he's turning out to be a thorn in the side. He's saying what many of us want to say, but can't.
More power to his elbow and the elbows of those like him (including you).
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 10 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
My fellow supremeness, I apologise without reservation if my remarks appeared to advocate throwing in the towel. Far from it. I was expressing the view that from experience, the policy appears to be 'don't reply and it will go away'. How many times have you read articles/letters in the press just begging for an answer. How many times have we all sat there thinking 'That's not right' or 'the silly pratt (author) doesn't know what he's talking about'. And what do we get? Nothing. Not a squeak.
I have a hell of a lot of time for guys like John Nichol - he's turning out to be a thorn in the side. He's saying what many of us want to say, but can't.
More power to his elbow and the elbows of those like him (including you).
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 10 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]