Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

MoD may destroy Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash records

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MoD may destroy Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash records

Old 2nd Feb 2019, 10:23
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 59
Posts: 35
979 now.
Cheers!
clarkieboy is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 10:23
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 803
Have signed 976.

The chances are that the Crown Office of Scotland will have destroyed all the records associated with the Fatal Accident Inquiry. I believe they keep them for 10 years

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 11:28
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England
Posts: 36
Signed. Went through Cranwell with Rick Cook - was at Odiham when this happened.
Torchy is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 11:49
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,153
Signed. Now over a thousand
ZH875 is online now  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 16:49
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 99
Signed. Keep the faith.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2019, 16:15
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: spain
Posts: 8
Signed. Nil Carborundum etc....
SNator is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2019, 16:55
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 803
Of course they are now likely to destroy all the records associated with the Glen Ogle accident (Sept 1994)

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2019, 08:12
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 71
Posts: 370
Guilty B******s

Hi Brian, Tecumseh and all.
Only surprise is that incriminating evidence has survived this long.
Ben Wallace, a former Army Officer, seems tonshow genuine interest.
dalek is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2019, 14:04
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 452
Thumbs up

Signed of course!
Al-bert is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2019, 19:59
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: U.K.
Age: 42
Posts: 147
MODS, is it worth getting attentiom to this in the wider reaches of PPRuNe? Not being Military, I only happen to be here as Iíve got a head cold and have been flying my sofa today instead of an aircraft and getting bored of Top Gear repeats on Dave. I have, of course, signed.
Jump Complete is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 08:05
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,769
It's gratifying to see the universal support here. Also, that MoD's apologists and the wilder conspiracy theorists have chosen to stay away.

May I just say to those new to this, it is important to understand that, after the findings were set aside in 2011, MoD admitted that the Chinook Mk2 fleet had no lawful clearance to fly, but this was withheld from aircrew and passengers.

The evidence that Lord Philip accepted is feely available, and a summary has been published. https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-disgrace-2016

Regarding the records the current petition seeks to retain, MoD has only provided assurance (to Lady Hermon) that 'Ministry of Defence records relating to the crash of the RAF helicopter Chinook that were closed between the date of the accident on 2 June 1994 and 1995 have been preserved'. Those familiar with MoD-speak will know this is bollox. What files were closed when there was a 17-year campaign, during which MoD employed a dedicated 4-man team just to reply to (but seldom answer) questions?

And, given the above admission, what of the crucial files from October/November 1993? Before 2 June 1994, they were held in 'Chinook Mid-Life-Update' (sic) files, primarily at Boscombe Down and the Directorate of Helicopter Projects in St Giles Court, London. The Air Staff and ACM Wratten's outfit would have selected extracts, primarily those affecting the yet to be issued Release to Service; telling them it wasn't allowed to be issued and why. (We know the latter knew this, because a few weeks after the accident it replied to a letter from Boscombe spelling it out). To paraphrase: You know that aircraft that crashed the other week? Can you please hurry up and declare it airworthy. That fact it wasn't rather places us in the shit if it ever gets out. It did get out, eventually.

Very soon after the accident, it was recognised these files constituted direct evidence. Either they would be heavily referenced in the accident files or, likely, copied and inserted. That MoD later denied their existence suggests files have indeed been destroyed. That does not mean it was a deliberate act of concealment. I was in DHP when we moved to Abbey Wood in July 1996. The vast majority of our files went missing, despite telling security and movers that they should be retained. But a simple phone call to Bristol confirmed that the promised army of staff scanning files to achieve a 'paper-free environment' simply didn't exist. The floor plate allocated to them in 1995 was re-assigned to the video conferencing suite. In my case I was lucky. I parked myself at my contractors and spent weeks copying their archives. Not sure about Chinook; but believe me, their rooms full of cabinets in St Giles were, like mine, replaced with a 4-drawer cabinet shared between numerous projects. And the vital HQ Mods Committees records (a primary part of the airworthiness audit trail) had already been ditched in June 1991. Quite important, when the Mk2 programme had kicked off in the 80s. This is why the most relevant evidence to Lord Philip was from Boscombe files, not MoD(PE) or Air Staff.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 11:09
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Threshold 06
Posts: 332
On the basis that a simple '1603' is too short a message, apparently.....

I signed as 1603
oldmansquipper is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2019, 10:56
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 222
From yesterday's Hansards https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...nce#g217489.q0
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2019, 11:34
  #74 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 11,908
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man View Post
All important records relating to the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash at the Mull of Kintyre will be selected for permanent preservation. Records selected for permanent preservation are ultimately transferred to The National Archives.
Let's hope that the those responsible with preservation put the correct emphasis on the term "all important records". Some relevant but embarrassing documents could still go in "File 13", despite what is hoped for here.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 09:34
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 3,994
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Let's hope that the those responsible with preservation put the correct emphasis on the term "all important records". Some relevant but embarrassing documents could still go in "File 13", despite what is hoped for here.
Brian Dixon's really irritating petition that we are signing calls for ALL records relating to the crash of Chinook ZD576 to be preserved at Kew, not ALL 'important' records. The very wording of the minister's reply tells us that the government clearly has no intention of preserving ALL the records and it alone will determine which 'unimportant' records will be destroyed.

Did the Minister's reply answer the question put to him to your satisfaction? Not for me it didn't, and Mil-26's link allowed me to say so (in company with a mere 8 others!). The only way we can express our dissatisfaction with this affair (for now) is to sign the OP petition and to answer NO to Mil-26's link :-

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...nce#g217489.q0

Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 12:25
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: SW England
Age: 64
Posts: 1,212
Mildly entertained by the fact that my email programme put the check-back message from the parliament.uk website into the Junk folder. They appear to share my opinion of the antics of some of the occupants of the Palace of Westminster. My thanks to Mil-26 and Chugalug2 for making it clear why the Hansard entry should also be in receipt of as many responses as the main petition.
Thud_and_Blunder is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 12:55
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Co. Down
Age: 77
Posts: 472
Did the Minister's reply answer the question put to him to your satisfaction? Not for me it didn't, and Mil-26's link allowed me to say so (in company with a mere 8 others!). The only way we can express our dissatisfaction with this affair (for now) is to sign the OP petition and to answer NO to Mil-26's link :-
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...nce#g217489.q0
Signed the petition, then followed Chug's link with NO. They can't even spell Chinook correctly, shows how much they care about it. We wonder if anything could bring so much of government into even further disrepute ... but they manage to do so.
Geriaviator is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 03:05
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Overseas
Posts: 1
Petition signed

Brian. I'm back too. Though I never really went well. Have written the former PM John Major and will raise with dips as and when I see them
Jm1994 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 16:43
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wiltshire U.K.
Posts: 24
Signed, and disseminated.
Shackeng is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.