Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Congratulations to Arkroyal.
After contacting his MP, following the initial reply posted earlier, the MP is reviewing his position and may be willing to meet Arkroyal to discuss the matter further.
I agree we should not now name the MP as I don't want to alienate them at the moment.
Congrats again Arkroyal. If anyone has not yet contacted their own MP, give it a go. You know it makes sense.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
After contacting his MP, following the initial reply posted earlier, the MP is reviewing his position and may be willing to meet Arkroyal to discuss the matter further.
I agree we should not now name the MP as I don't want to alienate them at the moment.
Congrats again Arkroyal. If anyone has not yet contacted their own MP, give it a go. You know it makes sense.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Brian, you obviously recieved my e-mail this morning.
Thanks too to Tandemrotor in anticipation of the BOI report to follow.
What I really need before meeting the said M.P. is hard facts (not rumour or speculation) from anyone who wants them aired.
He seems to be giving cautious support now that he realises that the BOI found no conclusive evidence and that Wrotten and Day may have a vested interest in the truth not coming to the surface.
Thanks too to Tandemrotor in anticipation of the BOI report to follow.
What I really need before meeting the said M.P. is hard facts (not rumour or speculation) from anyone who wants them aired.
He seems to be giving cautious support now that he realises that the BOI found no conclusive evidence and that Wrotten and Day may have a vested interest in the truth not coming to the surface.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
You are certainly doing the right thing. Natural justice has to apply in this case, for with the great uncetainty and lack of evidence of what actually happened in the final moments of this tragic flight, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Anything other than an "open" verdict should not be possible; the crew, sadly, cannot defend themselves and the rest seems to be no more than supposition.
HTB
You are certainly doing the right thing. Natural justice has to apply in this case, for with the great uncetainty and lack of evidence of what actually happened in the final moments of this tragic flight, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Anything other than an "open" verdict should not be possible; the crew, sadly, cannot defend themselves and the rest seems to be no more than supposition.
HTB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to let everyone know, I have recently started to post the questions and replies I sent to (and received from) the MoD, on the official No 10 Downing Street web page.
I know that they are already posted on this site, but others may like to make their feelings known on that site. No 10 will not reply, but they say all posts are read.
Don't know if the link will work but it is: www.number-10.gov.uk/your say/speakers corner/military
You should then see the folder regarding the Chinook incident. If the link doesn't work, apologies. Use the number-10 bit and do the rest manually.
I will master a computer one day!!!
I know that they are already posted on this site, but others may like to make their feelings known on that site. No 10 will not reply, but they say all posts are read.
Don't know if the link will work but it is: www.number-10.gov.uk/your say/speakers corner/military
You should then see the folder regarding the Chinook incident. If the link doesn't work, apologies. Use the number-10 bit and do the rest manually.
I will master a computer one day!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian, the link is http://www.number-10.gov.uk/forum/Forum.asp?F=47
did you have a browse around the Defence forum? It seems to have been taken over by a succession of fruitcakes who are doing the internet equivalent of howling at the moon!
did you have a browse around the Defence forum? It seems to have been taken over by a succession of fruitcakes who are doing the internet equivalent of howling at the moon!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr P.
Thanks for putting in the appropriate link.
I have e-mailed the No 10 webmaster to complain, as I think some of the fools who use the site are detracting from legitimate topics.
Still, I will continue.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
Thanks for putting in the appropriate link.
I have e-mailed the No 10 webmaster to complain, as I think some of the fools who use the site are detracting from legitimate topics.
Still, I will continue.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Recently heard from a mate who lost a relative in the crash, and it seems that the MoD has settled damages (at least in this case) at a fair amount.
That rather shoots down my theory that money-saving was a good reason to find Gross negligence rather than error, or the correct verdict of no cause determined.
Now, I'm still intent on a meeting with my M.P., and I would really like to know if there was any involvement by the reviewing officers (Wratten and Day)in the acceptance of the Chinook mk2 in to service before it was ready.
That rather shoots down my theory that money-saving was a good reason to find Gross negligence rather than error, or the correct verdict of no cause determined.
Now, I'm still intent on a meeting with my M.P., and I would really like to know if there was any involvement by the reviewing officers (Wratten and Day)in the acceptance of the Chinook mk2 in to service before it was ready.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heard today that Tony Blair has refused to see the delegation from the Mull of Kintyre Group. He claims he is 'too busy'.
After promising to give the matter his personal attention, he has just washed his hands of the matter and passed it back to the MoD.
Who is in charge Mr Blair??
We will not go away until this matter is reviewed by impartial individuals. (Sir Stephen Young springs to mind, but you just chose to ingnore him didn't you).
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
After promising to give the matter his personal attention, he has just washed his hands of the matter and passed it back to the MoD.
Who is in charge Mr Blair??
We will not go away until this matter is reviewed by impartial individuals. (Sir Stephen Young springs to mind, but you just chose to ingnore him didn't you).
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are some very good letters in the October issue of Pilot. The one from Lord Chalfont (Chairman of Mull Of Kintyre Action Group) is most thought provoking:
"...ACM Wratten accuses his critics of 'wilful ignorance'. As the Mull Of Kintyre Group is making a...formal aproach to the PM, I will make no further comment at this stage, except to say...the group has taken great care not in any way to impugn the integrity or competence of anyone involved in this matter. However, if the Queensbury Rules are to be dispensed with, Sir William Wratten may have to answer some questions which have not yet been asked".
Now that's what I call a warning letter - Let 'em have it M'Lord.
"...ACM Wratten accuses his critics of 'wilful ignorance'. As the Mull Of Kintyre Group is making a...formal aproach to the PM, I will make no further comment at this stage, except to say...the group has taken great care not in any way to impugn the integrity or competence of anyone involved in this matter. However, if the Queensbury Rules are to be dispensed with, Sir William Wratten may have to answer some questions which have not yet been asked".
Now that's what I call a warning letter - Let 'em have it M'Lord.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal,
sorry for the delay in getting this to you.
Here is the information you asked for regarding the involvment of certain senior officers:
Initially, the MoD stated that neither Day or Wratten had any involvement at all. After further questions were put to them they stated that Day was not responsible (as Air Officer Commanding No. 1 - which covers the Chinook) for certifying the Chinook. That job was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, delegated to the RAF and MoD (who took advice from Boscombe Down but rejected its recommendation to rewrite the software).
AVM Day was, however, the man who as AOC No. 1 took responsibility for the decision to deploy the Chinook in operations, and who was responsible for keeping the Chinook in operational service despite the continued concerns of Boscombe Down and criticisms from flight crews during the early flights. Criticisms such as the unreliability of the FADEC and the engine warning lights, high temperature warnings and warnings regarding torque mismatches (a matching of torque between the two Chinook engines is crucial in terms of stability and helping to ensure no rotor runaways. FADEC is supposed to help match the torque but in the Mull of Kintyre crash, the torquemeters were not checked - AAIB said they did not have the test facilities.
Therefore AVM Day and the boss of all the operational divisions, ACM Wratten, were responsible for keeping the Chinook Mk 2 in operational service at a time when Boscombe Down said it would not recommend the helicopter for operational service unless the FADEC software was rewritten. Had the software been found to have been a cause of the crash, any criticism could have been directed at AVM Day as the officer responsible for keeping the Chinook in service (even after grounding - twice - by Boscombe Down) and at his boss, ACM Wratten, as well as possibly criticism of the MoD and RAF for certifying the aircraft despite Boscombe Down's recommendation.
Enjoy your meeting with your MP!!
Brian
sorry for the delay in getting this to you.
Here is the information you asked for regarding the involvment of certain senior officers:
Initially, the MoD stated that neither Day or Wratten had any involvement at all. After further questions were put to them they stated that Day was not responsible (as Air Officer Commanding No. 1 - which covers the Chinook) for certifying the Chinook. That job was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, delegated to the RAF and MoD (who took advice from Boscombe Down but rejected its recommendation to rewrite the software).
AVM Day was, however, the man who as AOC No. 1 took responsibility for the decision to deploy the Chinook in operations, and who was responsible for keeping the Chinook in operational service despite the continued concerns of Boscombe Down and criticisms from flight crews during the early flights. Criticisms such as the unreliability of the FADEC and the engine warning lights, high temperature warnings and warnings regarding torque mismatches (a matching of torque between the two Chinook engines is crucial in terms of stability and helping to ensure no rotor runaways. FADEC is supposed to help match the torque but in the Mull of Kintyre crash, the torquemeters were not checked - AAIB said they did not have the test facilities.
Therefore AVM Day and the boss of all the operational divisions, ACM Wratten, were responsible for keeping the Chinook Mk 2 in operational service at a time when Boscombe Down said it would not recommend the helicopter for operational service unless the FADEC software was rewritten. Had the software been found to have been a cause of the crash, any criticism could have been directed at AVM Day as the officer responsible for keeping the Chinook in service (even after grounding - twice - by Boscombe Down) and at his boss, ACM Wratten, as well as possibly criticism of the MoD and RAF for certifying the aircraft despite Boscombe Down's recommendation.
Enjoy your meeting with your MP!!
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
they even kept the mk2's flying in '94 after simple torquemeter gauge failures were shown to cause engine rundowns. Not really relevant to the Mull case but indicitive of pressure, at that time, to keep the damn things flying and thus pressure on the aircrews to fly in unproven machines.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Really to keep this subject in the front page.
Letter to MP sent pointing out the conflict of interest of Wratten and Day who were responsible for maintaining the Mk 2 in service (when Boscombe had theirs grounded), being the same officers who convened the BOI and then overturned its findings.
I would love to see the BOI so as to be fully briefed for the forthcoming meeting with the said MP.
Agree with John Nichol, the letters in Pilot are well written and worth a look. Interesting that the only obligatory view for the result was written by a FCO civil servant.
Letter to MP sent pointing out the conflict of interest of Wratten and Day who were responsible for maintaining the Mk 2 in service (when Boscombe had theirs grounded), being the same officers who convened the BOI and then overturned its findings.
I would love to see the BOI so as to be fully briefed for the forthcoming meeting with the said MP.
Agree with John Nichol, the letters in Pilot are well written and worth a look. Interesting that the only obligatory view for the result was written by a FCO civil servant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You just have to laugh!!
I wrote to my MP to express my disgust at the short attention span of Tony Blair regarding his promise to give the Chinook crash his personal attention. My MP is, and has been, very supportive and also wrote to number 10. This is the reply he recieved:
"I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 5 October with which you enclosed correspondence from Mr Brian Dixon.
The Prime Minister has asked me to arrange for a Minister in the Ministry of Defence to reply to you direct."
'Nuff said I think.
I wrote to my MP to express my disgust at the short attention span of Tony Blair regarding his promise to give the Chinook crash his personal attention. My MP is, and has been, very supportive and also wrote to number 10. This is the reply he recieved:
"I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 5 October with which you enclosed correspondence from Mr Brian Dixon.
The Prime Minister has asked me to arrange for a Minister in the Ministry of Defence to reply to you direct."
'Nuff said I think.