Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
John,
Please keep at it. I know from experience that those in high places (in and out of uniform) will keep quiet and hope that it all goes away. So many BOIs have been overturned or negated by those above who do not have the best interests of the people involved in mind - rather they sometimes place the 'best interests of the Service', or the 'best interests of the politicians' in mind (for whatever motive - draw your own conclusions).
That the crew may be at fault is the subject of much debate and informed and uninformed speculation, but the principle that an individual is innocent until found guilty is totally irrefutable. My suspicion is that the is a lot of rear end covering going on here, and it needs to be exposed.
Please, John, keep at it and find out the truth; we are accountable for everything we do, therefore so must they.
MH
Please keep at it. I know from experience that those in high places (in and out of uniform) will keep quiet and hope that it all goes away. So many BOIs have been overturned or negated by those above who do not have the best interests of the people involved in mind - rather they sometimes place the 'best interests of the Service', or the 'best interests of the politicians' in mind (for whatever motive - draw your own conclusions).
That the crew may be at fault is the subject of much debate and informed and uninformed speculation, but the principle that an individual is innocent until found guilty is totally irrefutable. My suspicion is that the is a lot of rear end covering going on here, and it needs to be exposed.
Please, John, keep at it and find out the truth; we are accountable for everything we do, therefore so must they.
MH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry for the delay. Here's the answers provided by the MoD to my questions:
CHINOOK CRASH – MULL OF KINTYRE
Further to your letter dated 11 June and our acknowledgement dated 19 June, your recent letter on the same subject to the Prime Minister has also been passed to me for reply. I am now in a position to reply to the questions in your latest letter. I am pleased to see from your letter that you believe all available information should be considered and I am sure therefore that you will wish to take full account of the department’s view.
Question 1
Can I suggest that there are two questions: did the Wilmington case indicate that there were faults in the FADEC at that time; and did the MoD initiate a claim for damages because of those faults?
The answer to the first is yes and to the second no.
The testing of a RAF Chinook on the ground at Wilmington as part of the development programme revealed a software fault. The identification of faults so that they can be corrected during development, before the equipment is delivered for service, is of course why testing is carried out. However, in this instance, the contractors did not have adequate procedures in place to accommodate faults that might arise and consequently the RAF Chinook that was being used as the test-bed was damaged. The MoD therefore took action against the manufacturers for the cost of the damage caused by the inadequate test procedures. Had there been no damage, the MoD would not have pursued arbitration action.
The Wilmington case offers no insights into the Mull of Kintyre crash. The fault that caused the problem at Wilmington was quickly identified and the software design was changed. The whole FADEC system was then re-qualified before the aircraft was brought into service. Although some nuisance faults were experienced by crews in the early months of service, these were mainly spurious captions illuminating in the cockpit of no safety significance and were well understood. However, the RAF Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the crash was familiar with FADEC’s development history – including Wilmington – and these teething troubles, and therefore paid particular attention to the FADEC. The BoI found nothing to suggest that FADEC was a factor.
Questions 2 & 3
Much has been made of the fact that Boscombe Down’s preferred method of verifying the FADEC software was to use Static Code Analysis. This tool proved to be unamenable for the software structure and subsequently, to this form of analysis, led Boscombe Down to conclude that as the software was unverifiable, there was an unquantifiable risk associated with the FADEC software, and that re-writing the software was essential. However, that Boscombe Down was unable to verify the software using their preferred method of analysis does not mean that the software was unsafe.
Question 4
The purpose of a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death. The Sheriff’s overall conclusion was that he was unable to determine positively the cause of the accident. The fact that the Sheriff, sitting alone, felt unable to say what caused the accident should not detract from the findings of the BoI which, following a very thorough investigation and consideration of the case by experts used to flying Chinooks, concluded that the pilots were responsible for the accident.
Question 5, 6 & 7
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was not restricted in any way with regard to personnel and information they chose to consult, during their technical investigation following the Mull accident.
Question 8
Yes. However, because the evidence showed that the Chinook’s engines were working up to the point of impact, the Board set aside FADEC as a possible cause of the accident. It therefore follows that any software difficulties could not have been a factor. Although the Board acknowledged that other distractions were a possibility, the Station Commander, RAF Odiham, observed that, “there is no indication of a major technical malfunction.” Air Vice Marshal Day, one of the two senior reviewing officers, added, “In my judgement, none of the possible factors or scenarios [such as a distraction by a technical malfunction] are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight…I reluctantly conclude that the actions of the crew were the direct cause of this crash.”
Question 9 & 10
The Controller Aircraft (CA) who granted an Initial CA Release for the Chinook Mk2 was Sir Donald Spiers. Moreover, the AOCinC (Strike Command) at the time was Air Chief Marshal Sir John Thomson, and the ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C Bagnall. None of these three were subsequently involved in the BoI process.
Air Vice Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten were not involved with authorising the release of the Chinook Mk2 to operational service.
Question 11
Although the Tench Report was not published at the time, the Under-Secretary of State confirmed in the House of Commons in June that officials are considering whether the report can be released now.
Question 12
Cockpit Voice recorders (CVRs) and Accident Data Recorders (ADRs) are being fitted to the entire Chinook fleet as part of the Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) programme. Operational commitment and technical difficulties have meant the HUMS system should be fitted to the fleet by August 2001.
In conclusion, can I assure you that the MoD has examined in depth all the arguments and theories put forward to explain this tragic accident. Ministers and officials have gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry. Furthermore, the Defence Secretary has made abundantly clear his readiness to consider, very carefully, anything presented that claims to be new evidence. I can assure you that there would be no reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to consider new evidence. However, to date, nothing has emerged which casts doubt on the finding of the original Inquiry.
You might, however, like to know that the father of one of the deceased pilots, Mr Michael Tapper, met Ministry of Defence officials last month to discuss the RAF Board of Inquiry’s findings. It was suggested to Mr Tapper that if there are serious doubts still remaining he should discuss with Lord Chalfont – head of the newly formed “Mull of Kintyre Group” – whether the evidence should be collected together as one body of evidence and present it to the MoD. It would then be analysed thoroughly and a full response provided, as the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister himself have constantly pledged would happen.
In sum, the findings of gross negligence required there to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever over the cause of the crash. At the earlier stages of the RAF Board of Inquiry, a range of scenarios, or possible or probable causes, was considered. The conclusion arrived at was there was no doubt that the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. The judgement of the two reviewing officers, drawing upon their own experience, was sadly that this amounted to gross negligence.
You can all draw your own conclusions to the answers.
The campaign continues.
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
CHINOOK CRASH – MULL OF KINTYRE
Further to your letter dated 11 June and our acknowledgement dated 19 June, your recent letter on the same subject to the Prime Minister has also been passed to me for reply. I am now in a position to reply to the questions in your latest letter. I am pleased to see from your letter that you believe all available information should be considered and I am sure therefore that you will wish to take full account of the department’s view.
Question 1
Can I suggest that there are two questions: did the Wilmington case indicate that there were faults in the FADEC at that time; and did the MoD initiate a claim for damages because of those faults?
The answer to the first is yes and to the second no.
The testing of a RAF Chinook on the ground at Wilmington as part of the development programme revealed a software fault. The identification of faults so that they can be corrected during development, before the equipment is delivered for service, is of course why testing is carried out. However, in this instance, the contractors did not have adequate procedures in place to accommodate faults that might arise and consequently the RAF Chinook that was being used as the test-bed was damaged. The MoD therefore took action against the manufacturers for the cost of the damage caused by the inadequate test procedures. Had there been no damage, the MoD would not have pursued arbitration action.
The Wilmington case offers no insights into the Mull of Kintyre crash. The fault that caused the problem at Wilmington was quickly identified and the software design was changed. The whole FADEC system was then re-qualified before the aircraft was brought into service. Although some nuisance faults were experienced by crews in the early months of service, these were mainly spurious captions illuminating in the cockpit of no safety significance and were well understood. However, the RAF Board of Inquiry (BoI) into the crash was familiar with FADEC’s development history – including Wilmington – and these teething troubles, and therefore paid particular attention to the FADEC. The BoI found nothing to suggest that FADEC was a factor.
Questions 2 & 3
Much has been made of the fact that Boscombe Down’s preferred method of verifying the FADEC software was to use Static Code Analysis. This tool proved to be unamenable for the software structure and subsequently, to this form of analysis, led Boscombe Down to conclude that as the software was unverifiable, there was an unquantifiable risk associated with the FADEC software, and that re-writing the software was essential. However, that Boscombe Down was unable to verify the software using their preferred method of analysis does not mean that the software was unsafe.
Question 4
The purpose of a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death. The Sheriff’s overall conclusion was that he was unable to determine positively the cause of the accident. The fact that the Sheriff, sitting alone, felt unable to say what caused the accident should not detract from the findings of the BoI which, following a very thorough investigation and consideration of the case by experts used to flying Chinooks, concluded that the pilots were responsible for the accident.
Question 5, 6 & 7
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was not restricted in any way with regard to personnel and information they chose to consult, during their technical investigation following the Mull accident.
Question 8
Yes. However, because the evidence showed that the Chinook’s engines were working up to the point of impact, the Board set aside FADEC as a possible cause of the accident. It therefore follows that any software difficulties could not have been a factor. Although the Board acknowledged that other distractions were a possibility, the Station Commander, RAF Odiham, observed that, “there is no indication of a major technical malfunction.” Air Vice Marshal Day, one of the two senior reviewing officers, added, “In my judgement, none of the possible factors or scenarios [such as a distraction by a technical malfunction] are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight…I reluctantly conclude that the actions of the crew were the direct cause of this crash.”
Question 9 & 10
The Controller Aircraft (CA) who granted an Initial CA Release for the Chinook Mk2 was Sir Donald Spiers. Moreover, the AOCinC (Strike Command) at the time was Air Chief Marshal Sir John Thomson, and the ACAS was Air Vice Marshal A J C Bagnall. None of these three were subsequently involved in the BoI process.
Air Vice Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten were not involved with authorising the release of the Chinook Mk2 to operational service.
Question 11
Although the Tench Report was not published at the time, the Under-Secretary of State confirmed in the House of Commons in June that officials are considering whether the report can be released now.
Question 12
Cockpit Voice recorders (CVRs) and Accident Data Recorders (ADRs) are being fitted to the entire Chinook fleet as part of the Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) programme. Operational commitment and technical difficulties have meant the HUMS system should be fitted to the fleet by August 2001.
In conclusion, can I assure you that the MoD has examined in depth all the arguments and theories put forward to explain this tragic accident. Ministers and officials have gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry. Furthermore, the Defence Secretary has made abundantly clear his readiness to consider, very carefully, anything presented that claims to be new evidence. I can assure you that there would be no reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to consider new evidence. However, to date, nothing has emerged which casts doubt on the finding of the original Inquiry.
You might, however, like to know that the father of one of the deceased pilots, Mr Michael Tapper, met Ministry of Defence officials last month to discuss the RAF Board of Inquiry’s findings. It was suggested to Mr Tapper that if there are serious doubts still remaining he should discuss with Lord Chalfont – head of the newly formed “Mull of Kintyre Group” – whether the evidence should be collected together as one body of evidence and present it to the MoD. It would then be analysed thoroughly and a full response provided, as the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister himself have constantly pledged would happen.
In sum, the findings of gross negligence required there to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever over the cause of the crash. At the earlier stages of the RAF Board of Inquiry, a range of scenarios, or possible or probable causes, was considered. The conclusion arrived at was there was no doubt that the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. The judgement of the two reviewing officers, drawing upon their own experience, was sadly that this amounted to gross negligence.
You can all draw your own conclusions to the answers.
The campaign continues.
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
The trick with dealing with Civil Serpents is to seek out their weak point which is usually where they are at their most glib in an answer. The non-answer to Qs 5,6, and 7 is the key bit here. It is almost a straight lift from the preamble to a discussion between Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby:
HA: All information you asked for was made available to you.
JH: But how do I know what to ask for if I don't know what information is available or relevant?
Essentially, how can the AAIB ask for it if they don't know it exists?
The replying flunkey is at his most glib here (and misinformative). I would home in on this and keep asking narrower and narrower questions that don't allow for a glib, general reply. Remember: The party line may change so a bureaucrat is unlikely to lie outright. He will, however, do all he can to avoid telling a (whole) embarrassing truth.
Well done Brian!
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 24 August 2000).]
HA: All information you asked for was made available to you.
JH: But how do I know what to ask for if I don't know what information is available or relevant?
Essentially, how can the AAIB ask for it if they don't know it exists?
The replying flunkey is at his most glib here (and misinformative). I would home in on this and keep asking narrower and narrower questions that don't allow for a glib, general reply. Remember: The party line may change so a bureaucrat is unlikely to lie outright. He will, however, do all he can to avoid telling a (whole) embarrassing truth.
Well done Brian!
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 24 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
An aside....
Those of us in the business are surely becoming aware of the growing interest that PPrune is generated amongts our Lords & Masters. Many, I have no doubt, would love to put a stop to this; a few, hopefully, will take something away from these forums and maybe even act upon them.
This is a worthwhile and emotive thread, and there is a large amount to be said. However, this has been instigated by a journalist for his own ends. I suspect that this is exactly the sort of fire feeding we, as a group, should try to avoid if we have any hope of bring more of the Wheels over to the cause.
Those of us in the business are surely becoming aware of the growing interest that PPrune is generated amongts our Lords & Masters. Many, I have no doubt, would love to put a stop to this; a few, hopefully, will take something away from these forums and maybe even act upon them.
This is a worthwhile and emotive thread, and there is a large amount to be said. However, this has been instigated by a journalist for his own ends. I suspect that this is exactly the sort of fire feeding we, as a group, should try to avoid if we have any hope of bring more of the Wheels over to the cause.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Frankly, guys, I am amazed at how the basics behind this accident have neen confused by endless technical debate about glitches in the computer system, etc. etc.
Look, all of us who drive fling-wings know that the helicopter is an imperfect machine. Always will be. I can't remember a single type of helicopter that I have flown that didn't have a few built in gremlins. You should have been around the Super Puma when it first came onto the North Sea, or the S76! But that's all part of the deal. Coping with the machine is what we get paid for (or 'got' in my case, as I saw the light and gave up commercial rotary flying some years ago).
The fact is, that this accident, as far as we can reasonably assume, was down to a lack of basic airmanship. From all the published accounts on the subject the they were flying low level in IMC conditions at cruise speed towards high ground. If they were flying above the safety hieght then I am certain this accident would not have happened.
Any of us who have been round the block a few times have taken the same sort of risk from time to time, for all the usual reasons.
But the trick is, to be aware when you are doing it and keep yourself extra alert. And in this case this is the one thing that they obviously failed to do.
The problem is that there are some powerful driving forces keeping this story alive.
Firstly, ther are the parents of the dead pilots. I can absolutely understand the way they feel. In the same situation I would behave in the same way. They have a deep and very understandable, (and completely natural) desire to 'clear their sons names'.
Secondly, there are the various media interests involved. Frankly, the few people I know in the media (press, TV,) would sell their own Grandmothers for a hot exclusive story, and they don't come any better than 'death crash top brass consiracy cover up plot'.
Thirdly, the odd politician has been getting in there and stirring the pot. This is because they sense that there is a vote catching angle there somewhere. The fundamental truth with survival as a politician is that you find out what the majority ar believing and then say that you believe it too. Forgive me. at the age of 55 I'm a cynic!
Forthly. I'n the armed forces flying fraternity there is a very strong 'group binding' spirit. This also happens in the medical profession and the legal profession. An attack on one member brings the group out in his defence, especaily when the senior officers are making the attack in the first place. This is an admirable tendency (and,
incidentally, you don't tend to get that out here in civilian aviation. Out here it's every man for himself!).
So, Yes, I agree, even though this story is a dead one it's still going to run and run.....
Look, all of us who drive fling-wings know that the helicopter is an imperfect machine. Always will be. I can't remember a single type of helicopter that I have flown that didn't have a few built in gremlins. You should have been around the Super Puma when it first came onto the North Sea, or the S76! But that's all part of the deal. Coping with the machine is what we get paid for (or 'got' in my case, as I saw the light and gave up commercial rotary flying some years ago).
The fact is, that this accident, as far as we can reasonably assume, was down to a lack of basic airmanship. From all the published accounts on the subject the they were flying low level in IMC conditions at cruise speed towards high ground. If they were flying above the safety hieght then I am certain this accident would not have happened.
Any of us who have been round the block a few times have taken the same sort of risk from time to time, for all the usual reasons.
But the trick is, to be aware when you are doing it and keep yourself extra alert. And in this case this is the one thing that they obviously failed to do.
The problem is that there are some powerful driving forces keeping this story alive.
Firstly, ther are the parents of the dead pilots. I can absolutely understand the way they feel. In the same situation I would behave in the same way. They have a deep and very understandable, (and completely natural) desire to 'clear their sons names'.
Secondly, there are the various media interests involved. Frankly, the few people I know in the media (press, TV,) would sell their own Grandmothers for a hot exclusive story, and they don't come any better than 'death crash top brass consiracy cover up plot'.
Thirdly, the odd politician has been getting in there and stirring the pot. This is because they sense that there is a vote catching angle there somewhere. The fundamental truth with survival as a politician is that you find out what the majority ar believing and then say that you believe it too. Forgive me. at the age of 55 I'm a cynic!
Forthly. I'n the armed forces flying fraternity there is a very strong 'group binding' spirit. This also happens in the medical profession and the legal profession. An attack on one member brings the group out in his defence, especaily when the senior officers are making the attack in the first place. This is an admirable tendency (and,
incidentally, you don't tend to get that out here in civilian aviation. Out here it's every man for himself!).
So, Yes, I agree, even though this story is a dead one it's still going to run and run.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy,
I despair. (Indeed I wonder who you are).
You say: (I paraphrase)
"This accident was down to a basic lack of airmanship. The crew were flying at high speed in IMC, below SALT towards high ground".
1. This statement is an exact reproduction of the 100s of MOD statements made over the last few years. Any comment?
2. MOST IMPORTANT THIS ONE. Can you please read Tandemrotor's posts. Most of his points are taken directly from Wg Cdr Pulford and the BOI. Could you then explain (rather than simply state) your analysis and tell us how you know more than he does about the circumstances of the crash?
I think we should be told
I despair. (Indeed I wonder who you are).
You say: (I paraphrase)
"This accident was down to a basic lack of airmanship. The crew were flying at high speed in IMC, below SALT towards high ground".
1. This statement is an exact reproduction of the 100s of MOD statements made over the last few years. Any comment?
2. MOST IMPORTANT THIS ONE. Can you please read Tandemrotor's posts. Most of his points are taken directly from Wg Cdr Pulford and the BOI. Could you then explain (rather than simply state) your analysis and tell us how you know more than he does about the circumstances of the crash?
I think we should be told
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an independant observer (reader)
these are my observations;
Johns intentions are clearly honourable & to determine the truth; top man.
I personlly do not believe that
RAF aircrew would make basic 'lack' of airmanship errors, period.
Let John do his research without clouding the issue with re-hashes of the already
biased report.
Finally, sincerest respects to the
memory of the aircrew & all on board.
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA
these are my observations;
Johns intentions are clearly honourable & to determine the truth; top man.
I personlly do not believe that
RAF aircrew would make basic 'lack' of airmanship errors, period.
Let John do his research without clouding the issue with re-hashes of the already
biased report.
Finally, sincerest respects to the
memory of the aircrew & all on board.
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy,
I'll type this slowly, so you have time to read it.
What option did they have other than to fly VMC when the aircraft they were told to go and fly (which the TPs had judged unfit for service and were refusing to fly) had no iceing clearance.
How can you be so convinced that a FADEC prone to problems (one had already beaten a Chinook 2 to death on the ground) did not fail and contribute to the accident?
Where can I get a portion of the arrogant, self confident, self righteousness that you display, 'cos frankly having doubts about things does sometimes complicate my life?
Savvy?
I'll type this slowly, so you have time to read it.
What option did they have other than to fly VMC when the aircraft they were told to go and fly (which the TPs had judged unfit for service and were refusing to fly) had no iceing clearance.
How can you be so convinced that a FADEC prone to problems (one had already beaten a Chinook 2 to death on the ground) did not fail and contribute to the accident?
Where can I get a portion of the arrogant, self confident, self righteousness that you display, 'cos frankly having doubts about things does sometimes complicate my life?
Savvy?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy,
I will not inflate your ego by allowing myself to fall into the name calling trap. However, I'm a simpleton, so please could you offer the following:
1. What are your credentials?
2. How come you know so much about things no-one else does?
3. You wouldn't happen to be an airship would you?
4. I'm not a journalist. Nor was I aircrew. Yet I am still very proud to be an active part of this campaign. What's in it for me?
5. Do you have an opinion of your own or are you just a reproduction service for others?
6. If you are that good, will you please give me six numbers between 1 & 49 before Saturday. Thanks
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited 'cos I really am a simpleton!!
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 25 August 2000).]
I will not inflate your ego by allowing myself to fall into the name calling trap. However, I'm a simpleton, so please could you offer the following:
1. What are your credentials?
2. How come you know so much about things no-one else does?
3. You wouldn't happen to be an airship would you?
4. I'm not a journalist. Nor was I aircrew. Yet I am still very proud to be an active part of this campaign. What's in it for me?
5. Do you have an opinion of your own or are you just a reproduction service for others?
6. If you are that good, will you please give me six numbers between 1 & 49 before Saturday. Thanks
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited 'cos I really am a simpleton!!
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 25 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy.....Words almost fail me.
You say that you have been there yourself, and so have the rest of us who have flown military helicopters. We have to fly low in marginal conditions and the chances of a screw-up are there.If there is no option to climb, then options can run out very quickly. That is not negligence, gross or otherwise.
I am not saying here that the guys screwed up!
I am puzzled by Wrottens defence of the negligence verdict in the Sunday times June 18. http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/p...enws02007.html where he admits that the only reason that negligence was decided upon is that the pilots failed to climb to MSA, and carried on instead in poor viz.
Surely if Tandem and Shy are correct, and the Mk2 had no Icing clearance, then there was no option to climb, and ergo no negligence.
You say that you have been there yourself, and so have the rest of us who have flown military helicopters. We have to fly low in marginal conditions and the chances of a screw-up are there.If there is no option to climb, then options can run out very quickly. That is not negligence, gross or otherwise.
I am not saying here that the guys screwed up!
I am puzzled by Wrottens defence of the negligence verdict in the Sunday times June 18. http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/p...enws02007.html where he admits that the only reason that negligence was decided upon is that the pilots failed to climb to MSA, and carried on instead in poor viz.
Surely if Tandem and Shy are correct, and the Mk2 had no Icing clearance, then there was no option to climb, and ergo no negligence.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is, perhaps, unrelated.
When Accident reports were introduced they were "non addmissable". (Not admissable in a court martial etc) This has now been overturned by the courts. (The judge deciding what is admissable).
Further, pilots/crew members are now (extremely) reluctant to say anything without legal advise.
The whole original idea was a system to identify ac faults/procedural problems/cock-ups etc as quickly as possible to save lives in the next days/weeks/months etc.
This has now fallen apart.
The question is, do we need to put it back? If so how? Under whose authority and what legal jurisdiction? Remember, the aim is to get full honestly without fear of legal repercussions.
Otherwise the accident reports will just drag out to 2...3....4 years and do no one any good.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 26 August 2000).]
When Accident reports were introduced they were "non addmissable". (Not admissable in a court martial etc) This has now been overturned by the courts. (The judge deciding what is admissable).
Further, pilots/crew members are now (extremely) reluctant to say anything without legal advise.
The whole original idea was a system to identify ac faults/procedural problems/cock-ups etc as quickly as possible to save lives in the next days/weeks/months etc.
This has now fallen apart.
The question is, do we need to put it back? If so how? Under whose authority and what legal jurisdiction? Remember, the aim is to get full honestly without fear of legal repercussions.
Otherwise the accident reports will just drag out to 2...3....4 years and do no one any good.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 26 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
It has been calculated that in WW2, 75% of all aircrew losses were due to factors other than enemy action. Some of these accidents were due to aircrew error. Some of them were due to aircraft, unable to climb to MSA, for a variety of reasons, flying into cumulo-granite. The hills of UK and many other places around the world are littered with such remains.
How many other crews, including the one just buried in Iceland of the Fairey Battle that flew into a hilltop on an operational mission, were branded as "grossly negligent'?
How many other crews, including the one just buried in Iceland of the Fairey Battle that flew into a hilltop on an operational mission, were branded as "grossly negligent'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that I'm going to extract myself from this dicussion. I came into it in the first place in an attempt to introduce some commensense and reason into the debate, but I know realise that its a bit like trying to talk a howling mob out of storming the Winter Palace. There's too much emotion and venom flying around for my liking.
So, in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny
"that's all folks!"
.... now, what was that rumour about Lord Lucan landing a spaceship at GCHQ.......
So, in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny
"that's all folks!"
.... now, what was that rumour about Lord Lucan landing a spaceship at GCHQ.......
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on Percy, don't take it so personally.
If you have a valid point then let's hear it. I'm happy to listen if you can evidence your claims. If you can convince me I will happily concede the point. Likewise I would expect you to do the same.
However, you have to accept that there are always at least two sides to every situation, this being one of those situations. I believe as strongly in my opinion as you do in yours. However, that should not stop us airing those views.
I don't accept that I am part of a howling mob though. If I have come across as venomous, I apologise. I have tried to campaign with the dignity this subject merits, putting across my concerns in as an intelligent way as I can. I have nothing to gain by my actions. I just feel that this is the right thing to do.
It's a free country Percy. Let's hear what you have to say.
Regards
Brian
If you have a valid point then let's hear it. I'm happy to listen if you can evidence your claims. If you can convince me I will happily concede the point. Likewise I would expect you to do the same.
However, you have to accept that there are always at least two sides to every situation, this being one of those situations. I believe as strongly in my opinion as you do in yours. However, that should not stop us airing those views.
I don't accept that I am part of a howling mob though. If I have come across as venomous, I apologise. I have tried to campaign with the dignity this subject merits, putting across my concerns in as an intelligent way as I can. I have nothing to gain by my actions. I just feel that this is the right thing to do.
It's a free country Percy. Let's hear what you have to say.
Regards
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian I am curious about your comment that FADEC problems had "caused a chinook 2 to beat itself to death on the ground." I am not aware of such an incident caused by the FADEC - indeed I can't quite see how FADEC could cause such a problem. I do know of an incident where a chinook had beaten itself to death but this was nothing to do with FADEC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy please come back.
Your opinion is as valid as any other. It is a pity that like Wrotten and Day, you seem unable to distinguish error from negligence.
And whilst on that subject, the press consistently say that the campaign is to overturn a finding of 'pilot error' we should jump on them when they do that as it shows that they have missed the point entirely.
Please note, I am still open minded, and am NOT saying that the guys screwed up!
Have prelim response from MP's secretary to my letter of last week, of course I must await return of the great man himself to get an opinion.
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 27 August 2000).]
Your opinion is as valid as any other. It is a pity that like Wrotten and Day, you seem unable to distinguish error from negligence.
And whilst on that subject, the press consistently say that the campaign is to overturn a finding of 'pilot error' we should jump on them when they do that as it shows that they have missed the point entirely.
Please note, I am still open minded, and am NOT saying that the guys screwed up!
Have prelim response from MP's secretary to my letter of last week, of course I must await return of the great man himself to get an opinion.
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 27 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy Drag
I am genuinely sorry you feel unable to sustain your case. Not surprised, but sorry.
I note that you have never claimed to have read the Board of Inquiry report, and I guess this is where your difficulties began.
You talked, rather grandly, about introducing "some commonsense and reason into the debate." Presumably to educate us ("the howling mob".) That's always going to be a tricky position when we are in possession of the facts, and you patently are not.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't pretend you know what you are talking about.
The information is available if you want it.
[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 27 August 2000).]
I am genuinely sorry you feel unable to sustain your case. Not surprised, but sorry.
I note that you have never claimed to have read the Board of Inquiry report, and I guess this is where your difficulties began.
You talked, rather grandly, about introducing "some commonsense and reason into the debate." Presumably to educate us ("the howling mob".) That's always going to be a tricky position when we are in possession of the facts, and you patently are not.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't pretend you know what you are talking about.
The information is available if you want it.
[This message has been edited by Tandemrotor (edited 27 August 2000).]