Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
It would appear that the House of Lords Select Committee will comprise the following Lordships:
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle (Chair)
Lord Tombs
Lord Bowness
Lord Brennan
Lord Hooson
Their first meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 3rd July.
Regards all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle (Chair)
Lord Tombs
Lord Bowness
Lord Brennan
Lord Hooson
Their first meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 3rd July.
Regards all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
just an update. The Mull of Kintyre Group met last Thursday. It was agreed to allow time for the Select Committee to acquaint themselves with the subject, before the Group deciding on the next move.
As usual, I'll keep everyone updated as and when.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
just an update. The Mull of Kintyre Group met last Thursday. It was agreed to allow time for the Select Committee to acquaint themselves with the subject, before the Group deciding on the next move.
As usual, I'll keep everyone updated as and when.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colchester UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the House of Lords Committee has to have time to assimilate the subject matter; may one ask what expertise they possess that will enable them to to deliver an opinion on the findings of the responsible Commanders?
I am not aware of any other aviation accident report that has been subjected to analysis, and subsequent approval(or otherwise), by the House of Lords: at least not since the R101.
I do not deny the right of their Lordships to enquire into this matter. I do, however, wonder what expertise they can bring to the subject that will enable their deliberations to be seen as balanced, focused and free from prejudice.
I am not aware of any other aviation accident report that has been subjected to analysis, and subsequent approval(or otherwise), by the House of Lords: at least not since the R101.
I do not deny the right of their Lordships to enquire into this matter. I do, however, wonder what expertise they can bring to the subject that will enable their deliberations to be seen as balanced, focused and free from prejudice.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take care, K52. Many people have fought long and hard to get to this point because there has been no alternative.
If the Select Committee finds the Wratten/Day stance to be flawed, will you regard their deliberations as balanced, focused and free from prejudice? I hope so.
If the Select Committee finds the Wratten/Day stance to be flawed, will you regard their deliberations as balanced, focused and free from prejudice? I hope so.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K52, I think you are missing the point. The House of Lords committee do not need to be aviation experts, nor is new evidence needed. The basic facts are the Board of Enqiry, who were the real experts, did not return a verdict of gross negligence. The reviewing officers, overrulled the findings of the board. These officers, in spite of rank seniority, were far less expert on Chinook operations, than the original Board. All the committee neeeds to ascertain, is what evidence did the air officers use to overturn the findings of the original board. As far as I am aware no such evidence exits. If their lordships can grasp that basic fact then they must accept that gross negligence is at least "unsafe" if not downright unfair
K52,
Hello again! What Brian actually said was "acquaint themselves with the subject" not to assimilate the subject. Surely this means that they are sensibly getting whatever facts are available before they start work.
Over the last year or so we have seen many people with expertise, like your goodself, offering all kinds of opinions which, at the end of the day, reflect the overall opinions expressed by the BoE - the Chinook experts had considerable doubts, the senior officers, with less relevant experience, had no doubt.
Hopefully, this committee will review this situation against the laws of the RAF pertaining at the time and against those of natural justice. I sincerely hope that they have some expertise in making this kind of judgement.
Brian,
I have tried without success to find out the backgrounds of the members of the Select Committee. Do you have any information?
Hello again! What Brian actually said was "acquaint themselves with the subject" not to assimilate the subject. Surely this means that they are sensibly getting whatever facts are available before they start work.
Over the last year or so we have seen many people with expertise, like your goodself, offering all kinds of opinions which, at the end of the day, reflect the overall opinions expressed by the BoE - the Chinook experts had considerable doubts, the senior officers, with less relevant experience, had no doubt.
Hopefully, this committee will review this situation against the laws of the RAF pertaining at the time and against those of natural justice. I sincerely hope that they have some expertise in making this kind of judgement.
Brian,
I have tried without success to find out the backgrounds of the members of the Select Committee. Do you have any information?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole Computer system controling the engine systems was totally not in a fit state for use on Sqn aircraft. How can the MOD say that the pilots were negligent when they had requested a Mk1 on standby because they were not comfortable with the Mk2. Also several days before the crash on the Mull the test pilots had refused to fly the Mk2 over the engine control systems. The fault been that the engines would unpredictably go to max revs with no prior warning or it would close down the engines altogether. The Mk2 shouldnt have been put onto Sqn duties until it had been fully tested and the test pilots totally happy with the whole kit. The MOD will not admit that their decision was at fault, they went for the only option they could to get out of it, Blame the lowest down the chain!! The MOD just want to get the cheapest kit to do the job i.e. the SA-80!! 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mebbe of interest...for Pulse 1
Rt Hon the Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Cross-Bencher
Profession:
Advocate, Scottish Bar 1949; Standing Junior Counsel to Admiralty 1954; QC (Scotland) 1963; Kintyre Pursuivant of Arms 1955-71; Sheriff Principal of Fife and Kinross 1971-74; Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey 1972-79; A Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland 1979-88; A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1988-96
The Lord Tombs
Cross-Bencher
Profession:
GEC 1939-45; Birmingham Corporation 1946-47; British Electricity Authority, Midlands, then Central Electricity Authority, Merseyside and North Wales 1948-57; General Manager, GEC, Erith 1958-67; Director and General Manager, James Howden and Co., Glasgow 1967-68; Successively director of engineering, Deputy Chair and Chair, South of Scotland Electricity Board 1969-77; Chair: The Electricity Council 1977-80, The Weir Group 1981-83, Turner and Newall 1982-89; Director: N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd 1981-94, Shell UK 1983-94; Chair, Rolls-Royce plc 1985-92, Director 1982-92
The Lord Bowness
Conservative
Profession:
Admitted Solicitor 1966; Partner, Weightman Sadler, Solicitors, Purley, Surrey 1970-
Lords:
House of Lords representative to Convention to Draft an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The Lord Brennan
Labour
Profession:
Called to the Bar, Gray's Inn 1967 (Bencher 1993); Crown Court Recorder 1982-; QC 1985; Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1989-97; Vice-Chair, General Council of the Bar 1998, Chair 1999
The Lord Hooson
Liberal Democrat
Profession:
Called to the Bar, Gray's Inn 1949; Deputy Chair: Flintshire Quarter Sessions 1960-72, Merioneth Quarter Sessions 1960-67, Chair 1967-72; Bencher, Gray's Inn 1968; Recorder of Merthyr Tydfil 1971; Recorder of Swansea July 1971; Elected Leader of Wales and Chester Circuit 1971-74, Treasurer 1986; Recorder of Crown Courts 1972-91; Non-executive Director, Laura Ashley plc 1985-95, Chair: Severn River Crossing plc 1991-2000 Laura Ashley plc 1995-96
Rt Hon the Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Cross-Bencher
Profession:
Advocate, Scottish Bar 1949; Standing Junior Counsel to Admiralty 1954; QC (Scotland) 1963; Kintyre Pursuivant of Arms 1955-71; Sheriff Principal of Fife and Kinross 1971-74; Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey 1972-79; A Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland 1979-88; A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1988-96
The Lord Tombs
Cross-Bencher
Profession:
GEC 1939-45; Birmingham Corporation 1946-47; British Electricity Authority, Midlands, then Central Electricity Authority, Merseyside and North Wales 1948-57; General Manager, GEC, Erith 1958-67; Director and General Manager, James Howden and Co., Glasgow 1967-68; Successively director of engineering, Deputy Chair and Chair, South of Scotland Electricity Board 1969-77; Chair: The Electricity Council 1977-80, The Weir Group 1981-83, Turner and Newall 1982-89; Director: N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd 1981-94, Shell UK 1983-94; Chair, Rolls-Royce plc 1985-92, Director 1982-92
The Lord Bowness
Conservative
Profession:
Admitted Solicitor 1966; Partner, Weightman Sadler, Solicitors, Purley, Surrey 1970-
Lords:
House of Lords representative to Convention to Draft an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The Lord Brennan
Labour
Profession:
Called to the Bar, Gray's Inn 1967 (Bencher 1993); Crown Court Recorder 1982-; QC 1985; Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1989-97; Vice-Chair, General Council of the Bar 1998, Chair 1999
The Lord Hooson
Liberal Democrat
Profession:
Called to the Bar, Gray's Inn 1949; Deputy Chair: Flintshire Quarter Sessions 1960-72, Merioneth Quarter Sessions 1960-67, Chair 1967-72; Bencher, Gray's Inn 1968; Recorder of Merthyr Tydfil 1971; Recorder of Swansea July 1971; Elected Leader of Wales and Chester Circuit 1971-74, Treasurer 1986; Recorder of Crown Courts 1972-91; Non-executive Director, Laura Ashley plc 1985-95, Chair: Severn River Crossing plc 1991-2000 Laura Ashley plc 1995-96
K52, a pleasure to have you back. What expertise do the Lords have? Well, mostly they can listen to a case when put to them in person and to hear the other side's argument.
This is not about understanding the technical evidence. It is about the interpretation given to circumstantial evidence. As I have said on a number of occasions, I don't say that the pilots could not have caused the accident. I simply point out that there is no EVIDENCE that they did.
The RAF was entitled to say what it believed happened on the Mull. What it was not entitled to do was find 2 men guilty of manslaughter without a trial, representation or any evidence.
For too long now the MOD have managed to hide behind ministers and letters. In a few weeks or perhaps months Wratten, Day and the team will be sitting in front of, to all intents & purposes, an independant jury, More importantly, they will be questioned about their judgements and theories for the first time since the accident. The HofL committee will be able to "cross-examine" them using the information they have been given by the experts from the families' side of the argument. This will be the first time that this has happened. The last time something similar occured (the Scottish FAI) the judge found for the families without hesitation.
Make no mistake about it, this is a milestone in military history. The absoloute authority of senior military officers is being questioned. Quite rightly in my opinion.
I understand that both Day & Wratten are "looking forward" to giving evidence and I think the outcome is far from assured.
But I take great comfort in the fact that almost everyone that understands this case believes an injustice was done.
We shall see what their Lordships think.
This is not about understanding the technical evidence. It is about the interpretation given to circumstantial evidence. As I have said on a number of occasions, I don't say that the pilots could not have caused the accident. I simply point out that there is no EVIDENCE that they did.
The RAF was entitled to say what it believed happened on the Mull. What it was not entitled to do was find 2 men guilty of manslaughter without a trial, representation or any evidence.
For too long now the MOD have managed to hide behind ministers and letters. In a few weeks or perhaps months Wratten, Day and the team will be sitting in front of, to all intents & purposes, an independant jury, More importantly, they will be questioned about their judgements and theories for the first time since the accident. The HofL committee will be able to "cross-examine" them using the information they have been given by the experts from the families' side of the argument. This will be the first time that this has happened. The last time something similar occured (the Scottish FAI) the judge found for the families without hesitation.
Make no mistake about it, this is a milestone in military history. The absoloute authority of senior military officers is being questioned. Quite rightly in my opinion.
I understand that both Day & Wratten are "looking forward" to giving evidence and I think the outcome is far from assured.
But I take great comfort in the fact that almost everyone that understands this case believes an injustice was done.
We shall see what their Lordships think.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey,
I break my computer for about a week, and look what happens!
K52 - Welcome back. Trust you are keeping well. I'm not sure what aviation expertise the Select Committee possess, but four of the five come from a legal background. I understand they will be looking at the legality of the reviewing officers findings as opposed to the technical aspects of the aircraft and the flight itself. As usual, however, I'm happy to admit any misinterpretation on my part, should there be any.
Fobotcso, Oldgit, Pulse, TangoMan - Many thanks for your posts. As usual, kind words of support.
TL Thou - Thanks. Saved me some typing!
John Nichol - You are right to point out the milestone in history. So far, many things that have happened with regard the campaign have been unprecedented. Some satisfaction may be gained from knowing that a path has been set for others, should they find themselves in such a terrible position. Don't forget the possible constitutional issue of who answers to who - civil power to the MoD or vice versa? We shall see.
Proposed web page is progressing nicely. I'll let everyone know when it's available.
Regards to all as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I break my computer for about a week, and look what happens!
K52 - Welcome back. Trust you are keeping well. I'm not sure what aviation expertise the Select Committee possess, but four of the five come from a legal background. I understand they will be looking at the legality of the reviewing officers findings as opposed to the technical aspects of the aircraft and the flight itself. As usual, however, I'm happy to admit any misinterpretation on my part, should there be any.
Fobotcso, Oldgit, Pulse, TangoMan - Many thanks for your posts. As usual, kind words of support.
TL Thou - Thanks. Saved me some typing!
John Nichol - You are right to point out the milestone in history. So far, many things that have happened with regard the campaign have been unprecedented. Some satisfaction may be gained from knowing that a path has been set for others, should they find themselves in such a terrible position. Don't forget the possible constitutional issue of who answers to who - civil power to the MoD or vice versa? We shall see.
Proposed web page is progressing nicely. I'll let everyone know when it's available.
Regards to all as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
