Chinook ZD576 - The Concealed Evidence
Rheino ...
Back to Mr Hill's new book - 'The Concealed Evidence' - referring to Appendix 5 dealing with AMSO (later to become AML) and AP830 - Leaflet DM87.
In 1987 the 'cold war' had a couple of years to run and the invasion of Kuwait was not far off. AMSO and DM87 were so damaging to UK military posture over so many years, that under other regimes, this would have been treated as sabotage and treason and the perpetrators punished accordingly.
...
Back to Mr Hill's new book - 'The Concealed Evidence' - referring to Appendix 5 dealing with AMSO (later to become AML) and AP830 - Leaflet DM87.
In 1987 the 'cold war' had a couple of years to run and the invasion of Kuwait was not far off. AMSO and DM87 were so damaging to UK military posture over so many years, that under other regimes, this would have been treated as sabotage and treason and the perpetrators punished accordingly.
...
The following users liked this post:
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Was I rude to him? Was he the one saying the pilots were already grossly negligent because they didn’t take breakfast in the Officers’ Mess? I can’t remember.
I hope so. During my time there I seldom was in a position to eat there at the normal mealtimes, same as many other crews. That’s why the crew room had rations delivered every day.
I hope so. During my time there I seldom was in a position to eat there at the normal mealtimes, same as many other crews. That’s why the crew room had rations delivered every day.
Watched both episodes. Excellent. Quite a lot about the effect on the families, which is the way the BBC advertised it. But let rip at MoD and especially the labour government in part 2. The Air Marshal interviewed by Paxman came across as a slimy toad in the snippet they showed. The test pilot Mr Burke was brilliant.
The following users liked this post:
Whilst I realise the two episodes of 'Chinook: Zulu Delta 576' are now available to view via BBC iPlayer, I don't understand why these episodes were only screened by the BBC in Northern Ireland. Does anyone here know why the BBC felt the rest of the license-paying public should be excluded from being able to view this on mainstream BBC channels?
The following 3 users liked this post by MrBernoulli:
An excellent programme and I agree that Mr Burke was superb. But why was this programme almost hidden away by being only shown in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Even there it was put on late at night. I only knew it was on because of this thread. On the other hand, Radio Times was plastered with pictures and articles about Masters of the Air which seemed to be only available on Apple TV.
Oops! I'm glad I'm not the only one asking this question.
Oops! I'm glad I'm not the only one asking this question.
Whilst I realise the two episodes of 'Chinook: Zulu Delta 576' are now available to view via BBC iPlayer, I don't understand why these episodes were only screened by the BBC in Northern Ireland. Does anyone here know why the BBC felt the rest of the license-paying public should be excluded from being able to view this on mainstream BBC channels?
This was the umpteenth attempt to get a decent, truthful documentary out, and each time canned by London. FPF first tried in 2016, others before them. The crash happened in Scotland, and killed a lot of Irishmen and military. So, no interest in London. Perhaps to get through the BBC censors, the producers decided this time to concentrate on the effect on the families. But the final part of Part 1, with Rob Burke, sets up Part 2 nicely and MoD get both barrels through the simple device of telling the truth.
The families were amazing. Chris Cook, the pilot's brother. Former RAF pilot Niven Phoenix and his mum Susan. Ann Magee. Stephen Foster.
David Walmsley of the Toronto Globe & Star got all the right points across. The weather was good. A long history of Undemanded Flight Control Movements. The RAF were prohibited from flying the aircraft. Wratten and Day said there could only be 'speculation' as to cause, but that speculation met the test of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Be warned. My telly only just survived the extract of Wratten sneering at Paxman.
The following 8 users liked this post by tucumseh:
Tuc, thanks very much for your thorough response. You confirmed my suspicions of a 'nobody cares about this' attitude from the BBC, a truly biased and warped organisation, if ever I saw one.
I saw Wratten at work, in Bahrain, in a pre-sortie briefing during the 1991 Gulf War. He was a good example of a highly dislikeable, self-interested, pompous ass. To find out much later, after this tragic Mull of Kintyre event, that he also had a metaphorically close interest in visual examination of his lower colon, came as no surprise. 🙄
I saw Wratten at work, in Bahrain, in a pre-sortie briefing during the 1991 Gulf War. He was a good example of a highly dislikeable, self-interested, pompous ass. To find out much later, after this tragic Mull of Kintyre event, that he also had a metaphorically close interest in visual examination of his lower colon, came as no surprise. 🙄
The following 3 users liked this post by MrBernoulli:
Tuc, thanks very much for your thorough response. You confirmed my suspicions of a 'nobody cares about this' attitude from the BBC, a truly biased and warped organisation, if ever I saw one.
I saw Wratten at work, in Bahrain, in a pre-sortie briefing during the 1991 Gulf War. He was a good example of a highly dislikeable, self-interested, pompous ass. To find out much later, after this tragic Mull of Kintyre event, that he also had a metaphorically close interest in visual examination of his lower colon, came as no surprise. 🙄
I saw Wratten at work, in Bahrain, in a pre-sortie briefing during the 1991 Gulf War. He was a good example of a highly dislikeable, self-interested, pompous ass. To find out much later, after this tragic Mull of Kintyre event, that he also had a metaphorically close interest in visual examination of his lower colon, came as no surprise. 🙄
Jack
Just taught myself iPlayer (yes, really - I never watch the telly these days...) to view the 2-parter. They used the 2 hours very well to get the important points across - fortunately everyone involved is articulate. I'm particularly impressed by the way the Belfast Telegraph/ Toronto Globe and Mail reporter realised his error then set out to correct it - an example many of the people featured over and over again in Mr Hill's books could learn from.
I'm pretty sure I've written in the original thread about my afternoon with Wratten in Bosnia (where he arrived resplendent in his flying suit with 56 Sqn scarf - in the colours of the Bosnian flag, ISTR). As a QHI on task, when first encountering an individual you only ask questions to which you already know the answer. I'd checked with the Sqn and spoken to the previous Chinook mate who'd flown him in the front seat - so I wasn't in the least surprised when his answer to my question about any previous Chinook flying experience was an emphatic "no". I agree with Tuc - Wrotten positively oozed out of the screen during his interview.
I'm pretty sure I've written in the original thread about my afternoon with Wratten in Bosnia (where he arrived resplendent in his flying suit with 56 Sqn scarf - in the colours of the Bosnian flag, ISTR). As a QHI on task, when first encountering an individual you only ask questions to which you already know the answer. I'd checked with the Sqn and spoken to the previous Chinook mate who'd flown him in the front seat - so I wasn't in the least surprised when his answer to my question about any previous Chinook flying experience was an emphatic "no". I agree with Tuc - Wrotten positively oozed out of the screen during his interview.
I recently watched part of the 2016 series The Somme 1916:Both Sides of the Wire. One of the themes Peter Barton extracted from reading the evidence was Germans were expected to identify and report on their failings so lessons could be learnt, the British tried cover up theirs. Plus ça change.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 31st Jan 2024 at 20:42. Reason: grammar
The following 2 users liked this post by SLXOwft:
Programs were very good and stirred the heart strings! Although, I would have liked to have it had more-openly discussed exactly what 'new evidence' (previously undisclosed by MoD) eventually swayed Lord Philip and the panel. I would imagine that the whole CHART report detailing so many airworthiness issues was key and the previously well-hidden BD signal about the ac automatics not doing what was required after a long while in a S&L transit (i.e. turning right instead of left) would have been right up there.
Interestingly, I had not previously heard the lighthouse keeper quite so clearly describing that the ac 'turned inland'.... for me, that says "UFCM" and tallies with Rob B and Tony C's reading of the odd rudder and flight control positions on impact - but guess we'll never know exactly.
But ultimately, Day and Wrotten were never, ever justified in making their adjudication of gross negligence - I think that is now an accepted fact by anyone with a modicum of nous. The legal advice was equally poor - any barrack room lawyer could have seen that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was an impossible burden of proof (it was meant to be) and D&W could not meet it.
However, if we are to be fair (a concept denied to Jon, Rick and their families for far too long), then whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ? I doubt it was the PM or senior MoD politicians because they came out in favour of clearing the pilots eventually. Rifkind especially seemed aggrieved that he'd been played for a fool by senior officers. So, who got the ear-worms into D&W - was it CAS? or ACAS? Or Controller Aircraft and his side-kicks DGA2/1, or some faceless civil servant from the MoD/Foreign Office/T&I possibly driven by business execs from across the pond? Perhaps D&W will be fall-guys yet - unless they come clean before they go (doubtful)? There is a good book in there somewhere for conspiracy theorists.....
Interestingly, I had not previously heard the lighthouse keeper quite so clearly describing that the ac 'turned inland'.... for me, that says "UFCM" and tallies with Rob B and Tony C's reading of the odd rudder and flight control positions on impact - but guess we'll never know exactly.
But ultimately, Day and Wrotten were never, ever justified in making their adjudication of gross negligence - I think that is now an accepted fact by anyone with a modicum of nous. The legal advice was equally poor - any barrack room lawyer could have seen that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was an impossible burden of proof (it was meant to be) and D&W could not meet it.
However, if we are to be fair (a concept denied to Jon, Rick and their families for far too long), then whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ? I doubt it was the PM or senior MoD politicians because they came out in favour of clearing the pilots eventually. Rifkind especially seemed aggrieved that he'd been played for a fool by senior officers. So, who got the ear-worms into D&W - was it CAS? or ACAS? Or Controller Aircraft and his side-kicks DGA2/1, or some faceless civil servant from the MoD/Foreign Office/T&I possibly driven by business execs from across the pond? Perhaps D&W will be fall-guys yet - unless they come clean before they go (doubtful)? There is a good book in there somewhere for conspiracy theorists.....
The following users liked this post:
Programs were very good and stirred the heart strings! Although, I would have liked to have it had more-openly discussed exactly what 'new evidence' (previously undisclosed by MoD) eventually swayed Lord Philip and the panel. I would imagine that the whole CHART report detailing so many airworthiness issues was key and the previously well-hidden BD signal about the ac automatics not doing what was required after a long while in a S&L transit (i.e. turning right instead of left) would have been right up there.
Interestingly, I had not previously heard the lighthouse keeper quite so clearly describing that the ac 'turned inland'.... for me, that says "UFCM" and tallies with Rob B and Tony C's reading of the odd rudder and flight control positions on impact - but guess we'll never know exactly.
But ultimately, Day and Wrotten were never, ever justified in making their adjudication of gross negligence - I think that is now an accepted fact by anyone with a modicum of nous. The legal advice was equally poor - any barrack room lawyer could have seen that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was an impossible burden of proof (it was meant to be) and D&W could not meet it.
However, if we are to be fair (a concept denied to Jon, Rick and their families for far too long), then whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ? I doubt it was the PM or senior MoD politicians because they came out in favour of clearing the pilots eventually. Rifkind especially seemed aggrieved that he'd been played for a fool by senior officers. So, who got the ear-worms into D&W - was it CAS? or ACAS? Or Controller Aircraft and his side-kicks DGA2/1, or some faceless civil servant from the MoD/Foreign Office/T&I possibly driven by business execs from across the pond? Perhaps D&W will be fall-guys yet - unless they come clean before they go (doubtful)? There is a good book in there somewhere for conspiracy theorists.....
Interestingly, I had not previously heard the lighthouse keeper quite so clearly describing that the ac 'turned inland'.... for me, that says "UFCM" and tallies with Rob B and Tony C's reading of the odd rudder and flight control positions on impact - but guess we'll never know exactly.
But ultimately, Day and Wrotten were never, ever justified in making their adjudication of gross negligence - I think that is now an accepted fact by anyone with a modicum of nous. The legal advice was equally poor - any barrack room lawyer could have seen that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was an impossible burden of proof (it was meant to be) and D&W could not meet it.
However, if we are to be fair (a concept denied to Jon, Rick and their families for far too long), then whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ? I doubt it was the PM or senior MoD politicians because they came out in favour of clearing the pilots eventually. Rifkind especially seemed aggrieved that he'd been played for a fool by senior officers. So, who got the ear-worms into D&W - was it CAS? or ACAS? Or Controller Aircraft and his side-kicks DGA2/1, or some faceless civil servant from the MoD/Foreign Office/T&I possibly driven by business execs from across the pond? Perhaps D&W will be fall-guys yet - unless they come clean before they go (doubtful)? There is a good book in there somewhere for conspiracy theorists.....
The programme didn’t really address the RTS issue and the motivations for that being signed either. The behaviours at the slightly more junior level don’t stand much scrutiny either.
I think the answer to motive is in Wratten’s character. I don’t know if it’s in the documentary but I remember the Paxman interview. Paxman pointed out the “no doubt whatsoever” requirement and Wratten replied,” Well, I am in no doubt whatsoever” . And to him, that was that.
I too was accused of gross negligence under his regime, but I was alive to fight it and “clear my name”
I too was accused of gross negligence under his regime, but I was alive to fight it and “clear my name”
I have wondered if fear that any adverse technical findings would prevent government approval of the order for HC.3 which presumably was already in 1 Group's and Strike Command's plans, played a role. However, if so, I do wonder why they have never admitted their mistake - watched too much John Wayne? (Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness.)
Possibly so, but why was Pilot error not sufficient for their purpose? Why did it have to be gross negligence?
“Pilot Error” was not one of the choices available. If it’s judged to be their fault the possible “verdicts”;were:
1. Error of judgement
2. Negligence to a minor degree
3. Negligence to a gross degree.
The relevant document had definitions of each but I can’t remember them . I believe there is a record somewhere of Wratten directing, prior to this event, that if an aircraft crashed it was because someone had been negligent, or words to that effect.
1. Error of judgement
2. Negligence to a minor degree
3. Negligence to a gross degree.
The relevant document had definitions of each but I can’t remember them . I believe there is a record somewhere of Wratten directing, prior to this event, that if an aircraft crashed it was because someone had been negligent, or words to that effect.
Thread Starter
Flipster130 :-
I think that flipster has it about right. The aircraft captain was also the detachment commander and had pleaded that the task be allotted to the Mk1 Chinook. He (and others) clearly had great misgivings about the Mk2. It was one thing to risk their own lives in the Mk2 on operational tasks but this was completely different, a glorified jolly to Fort George for the cream of our security personnel to network and play a game or two of golf. The order stood to fly them in this troubled aircraft. Who confirmed it? Group, Command, higher? The ROs 'finding' was so over the top that it rather smacks of impressing their seniors rather than expressing their own thoughts. Why take such a reckless risk when the RAF High Command knew just how compromised the Mk2 was? Wanting to impress the Army in particular that the upgrade was in squadron service and available to them? We've had enough conspiracy theories in the original accident thread but at least now we know how grossly unairworthy the aircraft was and how the RAF/MoD has striven from the get-go to enforce a cover up.
Episode 1 was superb to my mind. The testimony of the families was humbling. Having lost husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, and then been blatantly lied to, they still demand to know why their loved ones died and are prepared to be interviewed and filmed 30 years after the tragedy to keep it in the public eye. BBC Central clearly thinks differently and confined it to their NI and Scotland regions for local consumption. Wishing to satisfy others? Certainly they would be in good company; Assistant Chief Constables, HM Coroners, HSE, Select Committees, QCs, all have avoided crossing lines in the sand and done their 'duty'.
Airworthiness, or rather the lack of it, is an arcane subject that has had to be sold hard to aviation professionals, never mind the poor bloody licence payer. So perhaps little mention of it here is hardly surprising. I've yet to view Part 2 but from others' comments it seems for 'Series 1' that's it. Let us hope that a Series 2 will follow and that the entire series be broadcast nationally. In the meantime, all the more reason to read David Hill's three Mull books to better understand the depths of this evil conspiracy. It is no less!
...whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ?
Episode 1 was superb to my mind. The testimony of the families was humbling. Having lost husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, and then been blatantly lied to, they still demand to know why their loved ones died and are prepared to be interviewed and filmed 30 years after the tragedy to keep it in the public eye. BBC Central clearly thinks differently and confined it to their NI and Scotland regions for local consumption. Wishing to satisfy others? Certainly they would be in good company; Assistant Chief Constables, HM Coroners, HSE, Select Committees, QCs, all have avoided crossing lines in the sand and done their 'duty'.
Airworthiness, or rather the lack of it, is an arcane subject that has had to be sold hard to aviation professionals, never mind the poor bloody licence payer. So perhaps little mention of it here is hardly surprising. I've yet to view Part 2 but from others' comments it seems for 'Series 1' that's it. Let us hope that a Series 2 will follow and that the entire series be broadcast nationally. In the meantime, all the more reason to read David Hill's three Mull books to better understand the depths of this evil conspiracy. It is no less!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Feb 2024 at 22:52.
The following 2 users liked this post by Chugalug2: