Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mighty Hunter
No problemo. No need to apologise. I wasn't suggesting you were advocating anything of the sort, just reinforcing (for those in lofty positions) that we will not go away.
I consider myself small fry in the campaign, working mainly in support of those in the front line. I do, however, enjoy the occasional foray into Secretary of State, MoD and MP held territory!
No problemo. No need to apologise. I wasn't suggesting you were advocating anything of the sort, just reinforcing (for those in lofty positions) that we will not go away.
I consider myself small fry in the campaign, working mainly in support of those in the front line. I do, however, enjoy the occasional foray into Secretary of State, MoD and MP held territory!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wrote to Tony Blair when he stated at Prime Ministers Question Time that he would take a personal interest. Asked him the same 13 questions posed to Minister Hoon in the hope that one of them might be able to come up with some answers.
Guess what. I have received a reply from someone at No 10 advising me that the PM has passed my concerns to the Secretary of State for Defence as it is his area of responsibility!!!! So much for the personal interest. Hey Ho onward with the battle.
Please do not post replies advising me of my stupidity and naiivity. I had to give it a try didn't I.
Guess what. I have received a reply from someone at No 10 advising me that the PM has passed my concerns to the Secretary of State for Defence as it is his area of responsibility!!!! So much for the personal interest. Hey Ho onward with the battle.
Please do not post replies advising me of my stupidity and naiivity. I had to give it a try didn't I.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm afraid I rest my case. Nice try Brian. Anything that smacks of a climb down or at least a suggestion of justice just won't do. There is no political capital to be gained. Pity the next election doesn't rest on this case.
Don't let up, though, Brian, keep badgering your MP to get a definative answer.
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
Don't let up, though, Brian, keep badgering your MP to get a definative answer.
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mighty Hunter (edited 21 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Told you so" duly noted, Mighty Hunter.
Have to say, my MP is a great bloke. Very supportive and will forward information he deems relevant or helpful. He has also signed up with Lord Chalfont.
The campaign continues.
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]
Have to say, my MP is a great bloke. Very supportive and will forward information he deems relevant or helpful. He has also signed up with Lord Chalfont.
The campaign continues.
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 22 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anybody out there that could give us a clue when his Airshipness John Day is up for the Knackers Yard? ie. retirement.
Maybe then we'll find out how much those around him feel like supporting his judgement!
''Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt WHATSOEVER shall deceased aircrew be found negligent''
Maybe then we'll find out how much those around him feel like supporting his judgement!
''Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt WHATSOEVER shall deceased aircrew be found negligent''
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mighty H
'Nobody gained from finding the guys negligent'
Au contraire. The MOD has benefitted hugely, as, had the verdict been any other, including pilot error, then it would be liable for a very substantial damages claim.
This way the PBI's estates are liable, and I believe this is the ONLY reason for the finding.
Sad as it is to have to say it, I think the red herrings concerning the Mk 2's shortcomings will only ever be found as contributing to an accident which was mainly caused by pilot error. Is there any military helo pilot who has not said 'there but for the grace of God' over this one?
Error carries no shame, but negligence does.
That the MOD has chosen to save a few quid at the expense of two men's reputations is shameful.
'Nobody gained from finding the guys negligent'
Au contraire. The MOD has benefitted hugely, as, had the verdict been any other, including pilot error, then it would be liable for a very substantial damages claim.
This way the PBI's estates are liable, and I believe this is the ONLY reason for the finding.
Sad as it is to have to say it, I think the red herrings concerning the Mk 2's shortcomings will only ever be found as contributing to an accident which was mainly caused by pilot error. Is there any military helo pilot who has not said 'there but for the grace of God' over this one?
Error carries no shame, but negligence does.
That the MOD has chosen to save a few quid at the expense of two men's reputations is shameful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So what will happen if, as per the entry by webpilot suggests, the government decides to re-open the inquiry with 'new' evidence.
What outcomes would they have available to them without incurring any financial penalties?
They have been painted into a corner by individuals who failed to display the leadership qualities commensurate of their rank. I hope that at the end of this sorry saga, they will be held accountable for their actions. However, I doubt it very much.
Personally, I have no interest in any financial outcomes. The restoration of Rick and Jon's reputations, and a vote of confidence in all serving aircrew by senior officers is long overdue.
"Justice has no expiry date."
What outcomes would they have available to them without incurring any financial penalties?
They have been painted into a corner by individuals who failed to display the leadership qualities commensurate of their rank. I hope that at the end of this sorry saga, they will be held accountable for their actions. However, I doubt it very much.
Personally, I have no interest in any financial outcomes. The restoration of Rick and Jon's reputations, and a vote of confidence in all serving aircrew by senior officers is long overdue.
"Justice has no expiry date."
Guest
Posts: n/a
ShyTorque
No, I cannot enlighten you, sadly.
I am merely voicing my opinion as to why the pilots were found to be negligent, and I stand by my theory that it is all about placing the onus for any future claims on the pilots rather than the MOD.
I know that you have pointed out in an earlier post that the BOI found no blame should be attached to the pilots and that they were overruled by higher authority.I agree that this smells to heaven.
Whatever the reason for the accident, I think the thrust of the argument to clear the crew's reputations should be to remove the stigma of negligence, and that this requires no new evidence concerning the airworthiness of the Mk2, but simply a rational look at the actual results of the BOI before the interference from above.
Once that hurdle is jumped, THEN go for the less easy to prove questions regarding the aircraft.
Really, I think we're both on the same side here.
No, I cannot enlighten you, sadly.
I am merely voicing my opinion as to why the pilots were found to be negligent, and I stand by my theory that it is all about placing the onus for any future claims on the pilots rather than the MOD.
I know that you have pointed out in an earlier post that the BOI found no blame should be attached to the pilots and that they were overruled by higher authority.I agree that this smells to heaven.
Whatever the reason for the accident, I think the thrust of the argument to clear the crew's reputations should be to remove the stigma of negligence, and that this requires no new evidence concerning the airworthiness of the Mk2, but simply a rational look at the actual results of the BOI before the interference from above.
Once that hurdle is jumped, THEN go for the less easy to prove questions regarding the aircraft.
Really, I think we're both on the same side here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal,
The crux of this matter is that the BOI did NOT find compelling evidence of pilot error, let alone gross negligence. There were other factors and so many unknowns in the build up to this accident that any verdict other than CNK must be regarded with great suspicion and remain open to scrutiny, especially as the RAF's own guidelines on allocation of blame were well and truly breached.
In view of the lack of a definitive evidential cause, a verdict of "cause not known" would have sufficed and have been acceptable by the great majority of people, both inside and outside the services. The fact that this verdict was not acceptable to two or more senior officers, who saw fit to over-rule the President of the BOI, remains wide open to criticism, especially as they might well themselves be implicated in the cause of the accident in view of some unprecedentedly irresponsible management decisions regarding the airworthiness of the Mk2 aircraft at that time.
Two damned good pilots (and two good crewmen, by implication, as an ex-crewman has previously pointed out) were blamed for the loss of a great number of lives when they may well be innocent.
IF you are a military pilot or indeed any pilot ("FO", as in your profile could mean Flying Officer, First Officer, Flag Officer or Foreign Office) then you should understand the problem with that.
Let's put this in today's perspective. Concorde has just lost it's Certificate of Airworthiness and has been withdrawn from service for reasons now well covered by the media.
Imagine how it would be if BA were able to conceal this fact and continued to operate the aircraft. If an accident were to occur with no compelling evidence for the cause, do you believe they would "front up"?
The Mk2 apparently never gained the military equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness for technical /engineering reasons, until well after this accident because the RAF test pilots refused to continue with the test flying. This was due to unresolved anomalies with the FADEC.
That is the reason for the discontent.
(Edited twice due to incorrect grammar - and then realising I had missed something out)
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 16 August 2000).]
The crux of this matter is that the BOI did NOT find compelling evidence of pilot error, let alone gross negligence. There were other factors and so many unknowns in the build up to this accident that any verdict other than CNK must be regarded with great suspicion and remain open to scrutiny, especially as the RAF's own guidelines on allocation of blame were well and truly breached.
In view of the lack of a definitive evidential cause, a verdict of "cause not known" would have sufficed and have been acceptable by the great majority of people, both inside and outside the services. The fact that this verdict was not acceptable to two or more senior officers, who saw fit to over-rule the President of the BOI, remains wide open to criticism, especially as they might well themselves be implicated in the cause of the accident in view of some unprecedentedly irresponsible management decisions regarding the airworthiness of the Mk2 aircraft at that time.
Two damned good pilots (and two good crewmen, by implication, as an ex-crewman has previously pointed out) were blamed for the loss of a great number of lives when they may well be innocent.
IF you are a military pilot or indeed any pilot ("FO", as in your profile could mean Flying Officer, First Officer, Flag Officer or Foreign Office) then you should understand the problem with that.
Let's put this in today's perspective. Concorde has just lost it's Certificate of Airworthiness and has been withdrawn from service for reasons now well covered by the media.
Imagine how it would be if BA were able to conceal this fact and continued to operate the aircraft. If an accident were to occur with no compelling evidence for the cause, do you believe they would "front up"?
The Mk2 apparently never gained the military equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness for technical /engineering reasons, until well after this accident because the RAF test pilots refused to continue with the test flying. This was due to unresolved anomalies with the FADEC.
That is the reason for the discontent.
(Edited twice due to incorrect grammar - and then realising I had missed something out)
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 16 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook, what a good book! Dave did the loadie branch no favours here, the obvious use of the big print was just to create something that had more than 50 pages in it. Save yourself some money borrow it from the library if you really must read it.
[This message has been edited by Talking Role Equipment (edited 17 August 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Talking Role Equipment (edited 17 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Doesn't matter what you think of Dave McMullens book 'Chinook'. What matters is that he had the guts to stand up for the reputations of his former colleagues.
Shy Torque - I can assure you (not that I think I really need to), that the crewmen Kev Hardie and Graham Forbes were of the same calibre as Rick and Jon. Exceptional.
Another point well made. The Mk2 did not have the equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness. Test pilots are allowed to refuse to fly uncertified aircraft, yet operational pilots are not. Is this still the case?
"Justice has no expiry date."
Shy Torque - I can assure you (not that I think I really need to), that the crewmen Kev Hardie and Graham Forbes were of the same calibre as Rick and Jon. Exceptional.
Another point well made. The Mk2 did not have the equivalent of a Certificate of Airworthiness. Test pilots are allowed to refuse to fly uncertified aircraft, yet operational pilots are not. Is this still the case?
"Justice has no expiry date."
Guest
Posts: n/a
So the Mk 2 had no MAR? When did it get one?
So was it operating under a deviation to the Mk 1 release? Or an OEC? Some-one must know this, and it's vital!
If it didn't have some kind of paperwork, then the negligence lies with the authorising people. If it did, then some degree of negligence could be attributed to whoever signed the SD or OEC.
So was it operating under a deviation to the Mk 1 release? Or an OEC? Some-one must know this, and it's vital!
If it didn't have some kind of paperwork, then the negligence lies with the authorising people. If it did, then some degree of negligence could be attributed to whoever signed the SD or OEC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko,
have you had a look at the full report on the Computer Weekly web site? Loads of info in there. www.computerweekly.com/chinook
Tony Collins is an excellent journo. He was awarded Business and Professional Writer of the Year and his report on the Chinook crash was a major factor in his well deserved accolade.
"Justice has no expiry date."
have you had a look at the full report on the Computer Weekly web site? Loads of info in there. www.computerweekly.com/chinook
Tony Collins is an excellent journo. He was awarded Business and Professional Writer of the Year and his report on the Chinook crash was a major factor in his well deserved accolade.
"Justice has no expiry date."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shytorque
I absolutely agree that the correct verdict, based on the evidence should have been CNK. But it wasn’t, and for whatever dastardly reason, (and I suspect it is financial) the incomprehensible verdict of gross negligence was arrived at.
Now we all agree that a gross injustice has been perpetrated, and I am simply trying to look at ways to clear the crew’s reputations.
Something caused the aircraft to fly into the mull. It was either a mechanical failure or an error by the flight crew.
It would seem from any evidence that I have seen, that the Chinook was in level flight apparently under control, when, in poor visibility, it hit the steeply rising ground in its path.
It is fairly plain that had the aircraft been properly developed, and released to service with a meaningful icing clearance, then the accident would not have happened, as the flight would have been conducted under IFR above MSA. The cause, if mechanical, will not be found; and trying to prove otherwise simply allows the MOD to refuse to reopen the case.
So put aside the aircraft’s shortcomings, except for the lack of icing clearance, which forced it onto a low level grovel, which was bound to be hazardous, and you have an accident in the true meaning of the word. I have been so close to the same outcome flying a different, but equally inadequate helo. However unpalatable it may be to you, it is possible that this is what occurred. (Please note that with no evidence I am open minded, just stating a possibility).
IMHO you will never get the verdict overturned by trying to prove that the aircraft was at fault, even if it was. The best way to remove the shameful slur of negligence is to simply demand that the original evidence be re-examined. No inquiry could possibly find gross negligence (hell, the original BOI didn’t).
We really are singing from the same songbook here, and I too am horrified that these pilots have been wrongly blamed. I am just trying to be realistic and admit that they may have made a mistake whilst flying a mission that was more hazardous than it would have been had the Mk2 been better developed.
FO in my case is Civvy jet airliner First Officer, after 16 years Jungly flying with the RN.
I absolutely agree that the correct verdict, based on the evidence should have been CNK. But it wasn’t, and for whatever dastardly reason, (and I suspect it is financial) the incomprehensible verdict of gross negligence was arrived at.
Now we all agree that a gross injustice has been perpetrated, and I am simply trying to look at ways to clear the crew’s reputations.
Something caused the aircraft to fly into the mull. It was either a mechanical failure or an error by the flight crew.
It would seem from any evidence that I have seen, that the Chinook was in level flight apparently under control, when, in poor visibility, it hit the steeply rising ground in its path.
It is fairly plain that had the aircraft been properly developed, and released to service with a meaningful icing clearance, then the accident would not have happened, as the flight would have been conducted under IFR above MSA. The cause, if mechanical, will not be found; and trying to prove otherwise simply allows the MOD to refuse to reopen the case.
So put aside the aircraft’s shortcomings, except for the lack of icing clearance, which forced it onto a low level grovel, which was bound to be hazardous, and you have an accident in the true meaning of the word. I have been so close to the same outcome flying a different, but equally inadequate helo. However unpalatable it may be to you, it is possible that this is what occurred. (Please note that with no evidence I am open minded, just stating a possibility).
IMHO you will never get the verdict overturned by trying to prove that the aircraft was at fault, even if it was. The best way to remove the shameful slur of negligence is to simply demand that the original evidence be re-examined. No inquiry could possibly find gross negligence (hell, the original BOI didn’t).
We really are singing from the same songbook here, and I too am horrified that these pilots have been wrongly blamed. I am just trying to be realistic and admit that they may have made a mistake whilst flying a mission that was more hazardous than it would have been had the Mk2 been better developed.
FO in my case is Civvy jet airliner First Officer, after 16 years Jungly flying with the RN.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First Officer Arkroyal,
Thanks for your credentials
. Sorry if my reply to your posting was rather terse, but I often feel that people are too easily prepared to point fingers without taking into account some poorly publicised but very relevant factors.
I have been banging on about this injustice ever since the verdict of the BOI was over-ruled, here and elsewhere (for nearly four years on PPRuNe, albeit with my own username now changed due to a change in job spec; early on I was the only one on PPRuNe with an interest back in the days of Danny emailing us all each night! Sadly a lot of early stuff was lost in a major site dump 2 or 3 years ago). I have repeated myself many times and will probably continue to do so for a long time yet.
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have stated that I do not actually believe a FADEC event caused this accident. I have been flying in the helicopter low-level ops environment for over twenty years and I have operated two different FADEC equipped types and still earn my keep operating one, so I do know a bit about them.
However, it is possible that a FADEC failed. They had done so in the past on this type of aircraft, hence no C of A Release to Service or icing / IFR clearance. It is also possible that the intercom failed at a critical moment. The BOI found evidence of this. This is highly significant as it may have caused a misunderstanding between the two pilots in marginal weather resulting in loss of terrain clearance. The pilots may not have been at their best due to the way that undue pressure was put on them to fly this aircraft against their own wishes. There may or may not have been another mechanical failure. No-one knows due to the severity of the impact.
The problem many of us have with this is that blame should only be apportioned when there is no doubt and the RAF guidelines state just that. In this case there is plenty of doubt.
It is scandalous that the officers over-ruling the BOI were able to protect themselves from blame by apportioning it further down the chain. One of them has since seen fit to spout off in a national newspaper in an attempt to exonerate himself. I only wish that the crew were still around to defend themselves. What their families have been put through beggars belief.
I am certain that very serious management errors, disregarded by MOD for financial reasons or for military expediency, played a major part in this accident.
Let's keep it in the public eye.
Thanks for your credentials
. Sorry if my reply to your posting was rather terse, but I often feel that people are too easily prepared to point fingers without taking into account some poorly publicised but very relevant factors.I have been banging on about this injustice ever since the verdict of the BOI was over-ruled, here and elsewhere (for nearly four years on PPRuNe, albeit with my own username now changed due to a change in job spec; early on I was the only one on PPRuNe with an interest back in the days of Danny emailing us all each night! Sadly a lot of early stuff was lost in a major site dump 2 or 3 years ago). I have repeated myself many times and will probably continue to do so for a long time yet.
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have stated that I do not actually believe a FADEC event caused this accident. I have been flying in the helicopter low-level ops environment for over twenty years and I have operated two different FADEC equipped types and still earn my keep operating one, so I do know a bit about them.
However, it is possible that a FADEC failed. They had done so in the past on this type of aircraft, hence no C of A Release to Service or icing / IFR clearance. It is also possible that the intercom failed at a critical moment. The BOI found evidence of this. This is highly significant as it may have caused a misunderstanding between the two pilots in marginal weather resulting in loss of terrain clearance. The pilots may not have been at their best due to the way that undue pressure was put on them to fly this aircraft against their own wishes. There may or may not have been another mechanical failure. No-one knows due to the severity of the impact.
The problem many of us have with this is that blame should only be apportioned when there is no doubt and the RAF guidelines state just that. In this case there is plenty of doubt.
It is scandalous that the officers over-ruling the BOI were able to protect themselves from blame by apportioning it further down the chain. One of them has since seen fit to spout off in a national newspaper in an attempt to exonerate himself. I only wish that the crew were still around to defend themselves. What their families have been put through beggars belief.
I am certain that very serious management errors, disregarded by MOD for financial reasons or for military expediency, played a major part in this accident.
Let's keep it in the public eye.