Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
K52
“I did not arrive at I Gp until 2 weeks before the AOC "signed off" the BOI on 20 March 1995. I assisted GFSO in co-ordinating all the staff responses so that the AOC could formulate his Remarks. I do not have any recollection of being specifically asked for my advice by the AOC or CinC.”
“As I have said before; it was part of our job in FS to co-ordinate the various responses from relevant Staffs into one document and “flag up” the pertinent responses and provide a response from the Flight Safety aspect. Once complete the document was passed through SASO to the AOC. So the answer would be yes – comment from myself would have been included in the document that went out under GFSO’s signature. All responses from the various Staffs were “In Confidence” and I have no intention of divulging what was said or who commented. The same process would have been repeated at HQSTC by the CFSO and his Staff.”
“Thus we find that the AOC (2 Star), CinC (4 Star) and the Professional Head of the Royal Air Force (CAS) all had “ absolutely no doubt whatsoever” as to the cause of the accident. In reaching their respective opinions they had a wealth of expertise and experience amongst their respective Staffs to help and advise them. My own part in that process was miniscule; I had only been in post for 3 weeks and, as the AOC well knew, had no helicopter experience.”
We’re getting there eh?
“I did not arrive at I Gp until 2 weeks before the AOC "signed off" the BOI on 20 March 1995. I assisted GFSO in co-ordinating all the staff responses so that the AOC could formulate his Remarks. I do not have any recollection of being specifically asked for my advice by the AOC or CinC.”
“As I have said before; it was part of our job in FS to co-ordinate the various responses from relevant Staffs into one document and “flag up” the pertinent responses and provide a response from the Flight Safety aspect. Once complete the document was passed through SASO to the AOC. So the answer would be yes – comment from myself would have been included in the document that went out under GFSO’s signature. All responses from the various Staffs were “In Confidence” and I have no intention of divulging what was said or who commented. The same process would have been repeated at HQSTC by the CFSO and his Staff.”
“Thus we find that the AOC (2 Star), CinC (4 Star) and the Professional Head of the Royal Air Force (CAS) all had “ absolutely no doubt whatsoever” as to the cause of the accident. In reaching their respective opinions they had a wealth of expertise and experience amongst their respective Staffs to help and advise them. My own part in that process was miniscule; I had only been in post for 3 weeks and, as the AOC well knew, had no helicopter experience.”
We’re getting there eh?
Guest
Posts: n/a
cheapseat,
I see where you are coming from - but there is a world of difference, when staffing a document, between "Comment"and "Advice".
"Comment" would be to highlight opinions and evidence in the various enclosures; "Advice" would be to offer one's own opinion.
I note, however, that you declined to answer my question. I will put it to you again.
This Chinook sortie has been consistently portrayed as a short notice sensitive mission to transport high priority Security Personnel to a high level Conference on the mainland.
So how was it that you and Jon Tapper sat under the tiger's head in the 230 crewroom WEEKS before discussing this task?!!! It is obvious from your statement that you knew when this task would take place because you knew it would involve an HC2 whose deployment date was known. With the "NEED TO KNOW" principle in mind; if YOU knew, how many other people knew?
When replying you should bear in mind that at least one journalist from a Scottish Paper appears to source his "Exclusive" articles from this thread!!
I see where you are coming from - but there is a world of difference, when staffing a document, between "Comment"and "Advice".
"Comment" would be to highlight opinions and evidence in the various enclosures; "Advice" would be to offer one's own opinion.
I note, however, that you declined to answer my question. I will put it to you again.
This Chinook sortie has been consistently portrayed as a short notice sensitive mission to transport high priority Security Personnel to a high level Conference on the mainland.
So how was it that you and Jon Tapper sat under the tiger's head in the 230 crewroom WEEKS before discussing this task?!!! It is obvious from your statement that you knew when this task would take place because you knew it would involve an HC2 whose deployment date was known. With the "NEED TO KNOW" principle in mind; if YOU knew, how many other people knew?
When replying you should bear in mind that at least one journalist from a Scottish Paper appears to source his "Exclusive" articles from this thread!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Multp,
It was Shy Torque who raised the "Test Pilots refused to fly" issue again - not yourself.
Regarding the issue of the clearance into RAF service of the HC2 you will find somewhere in the pages of this thread an answer from MOD to Brian Dixon on this subject which states that it was the VCAS who authorised the aircraft into service - one AVM(?) Bagnall.
[This message has been edited by K52 (edited 25 April 2001).]
It was Shy Torque who raised the "Test Pilots refused to fly" issue again - not yourself.
Regarding the issue of the clearance into RAF service of the HC2 you will find somewhere in the pages of this thread an answer from MOD to Brian Dixon on this subject which states that it was the VCAS who authorised the aircraft into service - one AVM(?) Bagnall.
[This message has been edited by K52 (edited 25 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
K52
Thanks for your’ prompt reply and may I apologise for my failure to treat you with equal good manners.
In giving a full account of my dealings with John Tapper I would certainly be pushing the bounds of ‘need to know’. I realise this is shutting the door having yelled my argument through it and for that I also apologise. I’m afraid your use of the word ‘complacency’ got me all tired and emotional.
Thanks for your’ prompt reply and may I apologise for my failure to treat you with equal good manners.
In giving a full account of my dealings with John Tapper I would certainly be pushing the bounds of ‘need to know’. I realise this is shutting the door having yelled my argument through it and for that I also apologise. I’m afraid your use of the word ‘complacency’ got me all tired and emotional.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Multp,
My apologies, I neglected to answer your point on "differences training" on the HC2.
According to the Boards investigation all four Crew Members "had completed Chinook HC2 conversion courses between Jan and Apr 94.
On 31 May 94 Chinook HC2 ZD576, the first HC2 to be operated in NI, was delivered to RAF Aldergrove. This was 2 weeks later than planned and, as a consequence, out of phase checks were conducted by the 7 Sqn Second in Command on Flt Lt Tapper and other members of the detatchment, who were by then out of Chinook HC2 currency."
The Board concluded that "The crew were competent to undertake the flight."
Thus it would appear that the Board were satisfied that formal conversion training had been given to all crew members, and refresher training given to those who required it, before the crew embarked on HC2 operations in NI.
My apologies, I neglected to answer your point on "differences training" on the HC2.
According to the Boards investigation all four Crew Members "had completed Chinook HC2 conversion courses between Jan and Apr 94.
On 31 May 94 Chinook HC2 ZD576, the first HC2 to be operated in NI, was delivered to RAF Aldergrove. This was 2 weeks later than planned and, as a consequence, out of phase checks were conducted by the 7 Sqn Second in Command on Flt Lt Tapper and other members of the detatchment, who were by then out of Chinook HC2 currency."
The Board concluded that "The crew were competent to undertake the flight."
Thus it would appear that the Board were satisfied that formal conversion training had been given to all crew members, and refresher training given to those who required it, before the crew embarked on HC2 operations in NI.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to keep you all informed - The House of Lords votes on Monday afternoon on Lord Chalfont's call for a select committee. As you know, the liason committee refused to recomend setting a select committee up (bit confusing but it seems to have been a failrly clever Govt trap to knoble the process).
We shall know by 1700 'ish what the Lords decide - expect CH4 News to cover it.
Here's hoping.
We shall know by 1700 'ish what the Lords decide - expect CH4 News to cover it.
Here's hoping.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the BEEB:
Peers have voted in favour of a House of Lords inquiry into the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash.
A majority of peers voted by 132 to 106 for an all-party inquiry into the crash on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland.
The helicopter had been carrying Northern Ireland intelligence personnel to a conference in Fort William when it came down, killing all 29 people on board.
An original inquiry by the Royal Air Force concluded that both pilots were guilty of "gross negligence".
There have been continued calls for a fresh inquiry and a majority of peers supported calls for an investigation by a House of Lords select committee.
The Lords campaign for an inquiry was led by the crossbench peer Lord Chalfont.
He raised strong objections to the findings of gross negligence against the pilots by two air marshals.
A peers' liaison committee had rejected a call by the House of Lords on 5 March for an investigation into the controversy.
However, Lord Chalfont told peers on Monday that there was no evidence to prove "beyond all doubt" that the highly trained and experienced pilots had been at fault for the crash.
The peer said an RAF board of inquiry had originally placed no blame on Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook but a second inquiry by the two air marshals had found them guilty.
'Unwarrantable arrogance'
Although they were "perfectly entitled" to reach that conclusion, a wealth of evidence had been uncovered subsequently to suggest there were many doubts.
Independent reports by military aviation experts, a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland and other investigations had all concluded that there was no conclusive proof of what caused the accident, he said.
The government's insistence on standing by the verdict of the air marshals despite the evidence, was described as "unwarrantable arrogance" by the influential Commons public accounts committee, he added.
Lord Chalfont said the RAF regulations at the time demanded no airman should be found guilty of negligence unless there was "no possible doubt whatsoever about the causes".
The peer said that distinguished people including judges, aviation and computer experts former ministers and politicians of all parties had the gravest doubts.
Lord Chalfont's move came as an amendment to an attempt to approve the liaison committee report and he rejected protests that the Lords was not the right forum to examine the issues because they were too complex.
He said there was no need for a select committee to examine hundreds of witnesses or examine technical issues for it be fair.
He won the support of opposition peers' leader Lord Strathclyde who said he was "surprised" that the government did not vote to set up a select committee when the issue was debated at the liaison committee.
Tory defence spokesman Earl Attlee gave his support to a Lords' inquiry, arguing that there could be no proof that both pilots had been negligent.
Earl Attlee said: "I have no difficulty with the house acting in a quasi-judicial role, if that's what it would be doing.
"This case is different from a criminal case because the deceased in this case were not able to defend themselves."
Tory Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who was Northern Ireland secretary at the time of the crash, gave his support to Lord Chalfont's call.
Lord Mayhew, a former Attorney General, denied that a Lords inquiry would be tantamount to the legislature interfering with judicial discretion.
He told peers: "This is not the judiciary we are looking at but extremely senior and experienced officers of one of the armed forces, for whom ministers answer in parliament.
"There are doubts outside about their conclusions.
"There are doubts that have been mightily reinforced by contributions from all sides of this House.
Lord Mayhew said he had an "emotional involvement" in the case and told peers: "I knew most of those who perished in the Chinook. I met their families.
"I went to a religious service in connection with one of the pilots. I stood at the airport for a very long time while the bodies of those who perished were brought back to Northern Ireland.
"And I have always felt that there should be something more done than has, as yet, been done to explore the conclusion that was reached by the board of inquiry.
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers. On one view, a grievous wrong may have been done to the pilots."
All that the Lords inquiry had to consider was whether there had been "absolutely no doubt whatever" of the pilots' negligence and peers would not be expected to discover what had actually happened on the Mull of Kintyre.
Peers have voted in favour of a House of Lords inquiry into the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash.
A majority of peers voted by 132 to 106 for an all-party inquiry into the crash on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland.
The helicopter had been carrying Northern Ireland intelligence personnel to a conference in Fort William when it came down, killing all 29 people on board.
An original inquiry by the Royal Air Force concluded that both pilots were guilty of "gross negligence".
There have been continued calls for a fresh inquiry and a majority of peers supported calls for an investigation by a House of Lords select committee.
The Lords campaign for an inquiry was led by the crossbench peer Lord Chalfont.
He raised strong objections to the findings of gross negligence against the pilots by two air marshals.
A peers' liaison committee had rejected a call by the House of Lords on 5 March for an investigation into the controversy.
However, Lord Chalfont told peers on Monday that there was no evidence to prove "beyond all doubt" that the highly trained and experienced pilots had been at fault for the crash.
The peer said an RAF board of inquiry had originally placed no blame on Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook but a second inquiry by the two air marshals had found them guilty.
'Unwarrantable arrogance'
Although they were "perfectly entitled" to reach that conclusion, a wealth of evidence had been uncovered subsequently to suggest there were many doubts.
Independent reports by military aviation experts, a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland and other investigations had all concluded that there was no conclusive proof of what caused the accident, he said.
The government's insistence on standing by the verdict of the air marshals despite the evidence, was described as "unwarrantable arrogance" by the influential Commons public accounts committee, he added.
Lord Chalfont said the RAF regulations at the time demanded no airman should be found guilty of negligence unless there was "no possible doubt whatsoever about the causes".
The peer said that distinguished people including judges, aviation and computer experts former ministers and politicians of all parties had the gravest doubts.
Lord Chalfont's move came as an amendment to an attempt to approve the liaison committee report and he rejected protests that the Lords was not the right forum to examine the issues because they were too complex.
He said there was no need for a select committee to examine hundreds of witnesses or examine technical issues for it be fair.
He won the support of opposition peers' leader Lord Strathclyde who said he was "surprised" that the government did not vote to set up a select committee when the issue was debated at the liaison committee.
Tory defence spokesman Earl Attlee gave his support to a Lords' inquiry, arguing that there could be no proof that both pilots had been negligent.
Earl Attlee said: "I have no difficulty with the house acting in a quasi-judicial role, if that's what it would be doing.
"This case is different from a criminal case because the deceased in this case were not able to defend themselves."
Tory Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who was Northern Ireland secretary at the time of the crash, gave his support to Lord Chalfont's call.
Lord Mayhew, a former Attorney General, denied that a Lords inquiry would be tantamount to the legislature interfering with judicial discretion.
He told peers: "This is not the judiciary we are looking at but extremely senior and experienced officers of one of the armed forces, for whom ministers answer in parliament.
"There are doubts outside about their conclusions.
"There are doubts that have been mightily reinforced by contributions from all sides of this House.
Lord Mayhew said he had an "emotional involvement" in the case and told peers: "I knew most of those who perished in the Chinook. I met their families.
"I went to a religious service in connection with one of the pilots. I stood at the airport for a very long time while the bodies of those who perished were brought back to Northern Ireland.
"And I have always felt that there should be something more done than has, as yet, been done to explore the conclusion that was reached by the board of inquiry.
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers. On one view, a grievous wrong may have been done to the pilots."
All that the Lords inquiry had to consider was whether there had been "absolutely no doubt whatever" of the pilots' negligence and peers would not be expected to discover what had actually happened on the Mull of Kintyre.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry for the delay in posting on such a magnificent day, but I have just returned home from the House of Lords.
My thanks and congratulations to Lord Chalfont, the families, the Mull of Kintyre Group and everyone who has been so supportive.
There was a slight amendment to Lord Chalfont's motion. I have taken the liberty of writing it in full here:
"That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that this House rejects the recommendation of the Liaison Committee and appoints a Select Committee of five members to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 were negligent."
I must stress that the integrity of the reviewing officers is NOT being called into question.
Hopefully the Select Committee members will be chosen soon.
Thank you all again.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
My thanks and congratulations to Lord Chalfont, the families, the Mull of Kintyre Group and everyone who has been so supportive.
There was a slight amendment to Lord Chalfont's motion. I have taken the liberty of writing it in full here:
"That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that this House rejects the recommendation of the Liaison Committee and appoints a Select Committee of five members to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 were negligent."
I must stress that the integrity of the reviewing officers is NOT being called into question.
Hopefully the Select Committee members will be chosen soon.
Thank you all again.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
