Chinook ZD576 - The Concealed Evidence
Timelord's post no.39 interested me. It was not the first time a VSO has offered his interpretation of what constitutes an accident.
In the period Jun 1968 - Dec 1970 I was HQ22 Group Flight Safety Officer. The CAS, whose name escapes me, decreed that there was no such thing as an accident. Fortunately, our aircraft pool consisted of Chipmunks on 18 University Air Squadrons and some Vampire T11s and Meteor T7s on two Civilian Anti-Aircraft Co-operation Units (CAACUs). They caused little upset.
In the period Jun 1968 - Dec 1970 I was HQ22 Group Flight Safety Officer. The CAS, whose name escapes me, decreed that there was no such thing as an accident. Fortunately, our aircraft pool consisted of Chipmunks on 18 University Air Squadrons and some Vampire T11s and Meteor T7s on two Civilian Anti-Aircraft Co-operation Units (CAACUs). They caused little upset.
The neutral word prescribed by the MAA is "occurrence", encompassing what used to be called "incidents" and "accidents" plus also some of what used to be "hazard observations". Reports will sometimes refer to the "occurrence pilot", which gives an alternative spin on "OP".
The neutral word prescribed by the MAA is "occurrence", encompassing what used to be called "incidents" and "accidents" plus also some of what used to be "hazard observations". Reports will sometimes refer to the "occurrence pilot", which gives an alternative spin on "OP".
Well, the US Military do not accept the word 'accident', as it has connotations of "s**t happens", or "it couldn't be helped". Instead the use the word 'Mishap', and all their investigation reports refer to 'MP' (Mishap Pilot), 'MA (Mishap Aircraft ) etc etc. My former employer is a major International Oil Company, and they had a similar viewpoint.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for Mishap:
- an unfortunate accident
- bad luck
- a small accident or piece of bad luck that does not have serious results
Clearly neither the DoD or the Oil Co possessed or at least consulted a dictionary.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for Mishap:
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for Mishap:
- an unfortunate accident
- bad luck
- a small accident or piece of bad luck that does not have serious results
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
"he had an accident at the factory"
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was possibly me who dreamt up the term "Occurrence" in the context the MAA uses it today when we named the D-FSOR and defined all the associated terminology. I was a serving officer at the time but it was still DASC at that point, although the reality was we didn't overthink it as ICAO Annex 13 had done the hard part for us.
Another Year
It is pretty obvious, as we head to the 30th anniversary, 19 years after the MoD apologized to the Tapper and Cook families that something remains rotten with The State.
Not the peculiarities and specifics of the minutiae; rather the clue is in the sweep.
A team of more than a dozen full time civil servants (30 anyone?) in Bristol and London were employed to hold the line.
What line? That if there was new evidence presented by campaigners then the State would review the finding. Nothing was new to the State because they have all the evidence. Nothing to see here. Except each scintilla of information that emerged over the 16 years (1994-2011) when the pilots were finally cleared only helped the pilots' cause. There wasn't a single moment in all those years that set the campaign back.
Is it any wonder the State papers on the crash are closed until 2094. Why? And what other paperwork apart from Royalty enjoys such delay? Anyone?
The next phase of the campaign is to ensure the truth is revealed, not by another campaign but through the hand of the State itself, that currently remains hidden.
If there are good men and women out there, and there are, release the information while you are alive. Tell the stories that keep you awake at night. Join the subpostmasters in helping us find justice. Because we will all be dead in 2094 and I don't want the faceless bureaucrats of the State who have prevailed for so long, to win. Lying In State is not to be encouraged
Not the peculiarities and specifics of the minutiae; rather the clue is in the sweep.
A team of more than a dozen full time civil servants (30 anyone?) in Bristol and London were employed to hold the line.
What line? That if there was new evidence presented by campaigners then the State would review the finding. Nothing was new to the State because they have all the evidence. Nothing to see here. Except each scintilla of information that emerged over the 16 years (1994-2011) when the pilots were finally cleared only helped the pilots' cause. There wasn't a single moment in all those years that set the campaign back.
Is it any wonder the State papers on the crash are closed until 2094. Why? And what other paperwork apart from Royalty enjoys such delay? Anyone?
The next phase of the campaign is to ensure the truth is revealed, not by another campaign but through the hand of the State itself, that currently remains hidden.
If there are good men and women out there, and there are, release the information while you are alive. Tell the stories that keep you awake at night. Join the subpostmasters in helping us find justice. Because we will all be dead in 2094 and I don't want the faceless bureaucrats of the State who have prevailed for so long, to win. Lying In State is not to be encouraged
The following 5 users liked this post by Jm1994:
I think it was possibly me who dreamt up the term "Occurrence" in the context the MAA uses it today when we named the D-FSOR and defined all the associated terminology. I was a serving officer at the time but it was still DASC at that point, although the reality was we didn't overthink it as ICAO Annex 13 had done the hard part for us.
After all, half a dozen reports saying the Chinook Mk2 isn't airworthy, and a mandated directive not to fly it, can't be 'accidentally' ignored.
Likewise, Nimrod XV230......
The following users liked this post:
Maybe we should all leave sealed instructions to our descendants (grand-children and hopefully great-grand-children) to seek the MoD papers in June 2094 and to use Tuc's excellent publications to discover who did/said what....and finally to discover who took any small part in this shameful episode?
In the meantime, and in the unlikely event of anyone on the long list of Senior Officers involved having a conscience, then approaching the 30th Anniversary of their wicked deeds would be a good time to unload.
"Justice Has No Expiry Date" John Cook.
In the meantime, and in the unlikely event of anyone on the long list of Senior Officers involved having a conscience, then approaching the 30th Anniversary of their wicked deeds would be a good time to unload.
"Justice Has No Expiry Date" John Cook.
The following 10 users liked this post by Flipster130:
Regarding the papers being held back for 100 years (or is it 50?), the obvious question is – what papers?
It must be remembered that Lord Philip had to resort to asking campaigners if they could provide the policy document setting out the standard of proof (‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’), and that governing Safety Critical Software, as MoD claimed it could not.
At one point, MoD said the papers held by the ‘lead branch’ would be retained for 25 years. It would not say who the lead branch was.
The project office? It ceased to exist in March 1999, and if other aircraft offices in the same Directorate are anything to go by, 90% of their records had already vanished in the move to AbbeyWood in July 1996.
Perhaps they meant the Chinook IPT, stood up on 1 April 1999. Well, they didn’t inherit much, and had a clear-out of what they found.
Or the Air Staff files? The most benign of those were archived at the RAF HS a few years ago, and they happily release them under FoI, but in fact there’s so little of value it’s pointless.
Boscombe’s? Would QinetiQ be allowed to keep historical MoD files such as these, especially as they proved a series of very senior officers had lied?
For example, one important document MoD simply won’t answer questions about is the Certificate of Design for Safety Critical Software, for FADEC. Everyone knows it had to be signed by Boscombe Down, and they refused. But it’s seldom mentioned it also had to be signed by (what was) RSRE Malvern. No CoD? Not permitted in the aircraft.
And more fundamentally; no Controller Aircraft Release, no acceptance off-contract of production standard Mk2s. The status of the Mk2 when the CAR and RTS were issued? An unrepresentative ‘prototype’. First legal CAR? December 1995. Who issued a waiver against a mandate laid down by Controller Aircraft? It could only have been CA himself, or higher.
Given that in all probability only a fraction of the papers still exist, in 50, 100 years, whatever, the main evidence will still by that small part submitted to Lord Philip on a 482MB CD-ROM!
It must be remembered that Lord Philip had to resort to asking campaigners if they could provide the policy document setting out the standard of proof (‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’), and that governing Safety Critical Software, as MoD claimed it could not.
At one point, MoD said the papers held by the ‘lead branch’ would be retained for 25 years. It would not say who the lead branch was.
The project office? It ceased to exist in March 1999, and if other aircraft offices in the same Directorate are anything to go by, 90% of their records had already vanished in the move to AbbeyWood in July 1996.
Perhaps they meant the Chinook IPT, stood up on 1 April 1999. Well, they didn’t inherit much, and had a clear-out of what they found.
Or the Air Staff files? The most benign of those were archived at the RAF HS a few years ago, and they happily release them under FoI, but in fact there’s so little of value it’s pointless.
Boscombe’s? Would QinetiQ be allowed to keep historical MoD files such as these, especially as they proved a series of very senior officers had lied?
For example, one important document MoD simply won’t answer questions about is the Certificate of Design for Safety Critical Software, for FADEC. Everyone knows it had to be signed by Boscombe Down, and they refused. But it’s seldom mentioned it also had to be signed by (what was) RSRE Malvern. No CoD? Not permitted in the aircraft.
And more fundamentally; no Controller Aircraft Release, no acceptance off-contract of production standard Mk2s. The status of the Mk2 when the CAR and RTS were issued? An unrepresentative ‘prototype’. First legal CAR? December 1995. Who issued a waiver against a mandate laid down by Controller Aircraft? It could only have been CA himself, or higher.
Given that in all probability only a fraction of the papers still exist, in 50, 100 years, whatever, the main evidence will still by that small part submitted to Lord Philip on a 482MB CD-ROM!
The following 8 users liked this post by tucumseh:
Jm1994
If you are concerned with what remains rotten with The State may I recommend " An Inconvenient Death" by Miles Goslett.
It covers the death of Doctor David Kelly, a MOD civil servant and UN Weapons Inspector, on 17 July 2003 and the subsequent events including a suspended coroner's inquest. This was replaced by a Government Inquiry conducted by Northern Ireland High Court Judge, Lord Hutton.
Some may dismiss the book as supporting a conspiracy theory but it raises many legitimate points that were not and have not been answered. Not least why did Hutton impose a 70 year embargo on the release of all the evidence presented at his inquiry. To 'protect' Kelly's family was his published reason.
Another case to pass on to our offspring?
1066
If you are concerned with what remains rotten with The State may I recommend " An Inconvenient Death" by Miles Goslett.
It covers the death of Doctor David Kelly, a MOD civil servant and UN Weapons Inspector, on 17 July 2003 and the subsequent events including a suspended coroner's inquest. This was replaced by a Government Inquiry conducted by Northern Ireland High Court Judge, Lord Hutton.
Some may dismiss the book as supporting a conspiracy theory but it raises many legitimate points that were not and have not been answered. Not least why did Hutton impose a 70 year embargo on the release of all the evidence presented at his inquiry. To 'protect' Kelly's family was his published reason.
Another case to pass on to our offspring?
1066
The following 3 users liked this post by 1066:
Thread Starter
I hope that those with the technical means have managed to save the two episodes of Chinook ZD576, whether to PVR or computer drives. Having watched both I am in awe of the families in their determination to find out why their loved ones were even allowed on board this knowingly grossly compromised aircraft, let alone flown to their deaths in it. I was struck also by the professionalism of the Odiham TP who had to be given a direct order not to reveal his knowledge of the type's technical vicissitudes and shortcomings to the BoI, and particularly not to the attached AAIB inspector who had specifically asked for his help. The second hint of the cover up; the first being from Day himself at the crash site, "People make mistakes". They do indeed Sir, and it seems that you were one of them!
It remains to be seen if BBC Central puts out these two episodes of Series 1 network wide. Given the national implications of this tragedy logic would suggest they should, and that it should then be followed by a Series 2 revealing the cover up since. Alas logic and politics, civil and military, are usually in direct opposition and you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of the BBC if it feels unable to confront the RAF/MOD with its lies and intimidation?
It remains to be seen if BBC Central puts out these two episodes of Series 1 network wide. Given the national implications of this tragedy logic would suggest they should, and that it should then be followed by a Series 2 revealing the cover up since. Alas logic and politics, civil and military, are usually in direct opposition and you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of the BBC if it feels unable to confront the RAF/MOD with its lies and intimidation?
The following 7 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
The following 3 users liked this post by dervish:
In next weeks copy of The Radio Times is a full page article on this very subject. I read it eagerly to see which major channel would be broadcasting it. However as far as I can see it will only be on BBC i player ! Given that this is usually only for 'catch up' I wonder what is going on. It will certainly not reach the wider audience that the PO scandal did.
The following users liked this post:
I think it was possibly me who dreamt up the term "Occurrence" in the context the MAA uses it today when we named the D-FSOR and defined all the associated terminology. I was a serving officer at the time but it was still DASC at that point, although the reality was we didn't overthink it as ICAO Annex 13 had done the hard part for us.
And when the MAA introduced such reporting i believe they were call DASORs - that I suggested should see the withdrawal of CONDORs - Still dont know if that happened?
The following users liked this post:
Re. the programme... no problem accessing it via iPlayer - just requires payment of the licence fee !
As to content ? - an appeal to emotion rather than evidence and some rather odd claims and omissions just as misleading as the SO's ridiculous distortion of blame placing ... or, rather, the degree applied.
Emotion ? perfectly natural familial desire to protect the reputations of loved ones ... no disagreement there.
Making assumptions on in-flight activity with no hard evidence to support it . This may make for eye-catching TV 'entertainment', but it does nothing to advance the technical puzzle. Burke's input was posed as being that of a Test Pilot - a wholly different category than his actual post as Unit test pilot which gave him considerable experience operating on type but not the exploratory nature of A&AEE's and Handling Squadron's work. We were offered the latter's conclusions but nothing of substance as to how they were reached. On past (and present) records we are unlikely ever to be so informed !
From the very limited portions of the programme dealing with known crew activity, the absence of basic airmanship principles leaves inevitable unasked/unanswered questions, leaving us with a 'hearts and flowers' concoction.
Overall then, not hugely impressed and left with an itch to know more.
When I first heard the news of the crash, I immediately thought Mt Erebus and Air New Zealand.and, so far, subsequent (very limited) revelations haven't changed that. (I am, of course aware of the inertial input error which exacerbated that situation)
One final thought on the BOI's judgement - I seem to recall that it completely exonerated the Master Loadie from any blame, yet he was, apparently, operating from the jump seat ...perhaps CRM wasn't part of the SOPs ?
As to content ? - an appeal to emotion rather than evidence and some rather odd claims and omissions just as misleading as the SO's ridiculous distortion of blame placing ... or, rather, the degree applied.
Emotion ? perfectly natural familial desire to protect the reputations of loved ones ... no disagreement there.
Making assumptions on in-flight activity with no hard evidence to support it . This may make for eye-catching TV 'entertainment', but it does nothing to advance the technical puzzle. Burke's input was posed as being that of a Test Pilot - a wholly different category than his actual post as Unit test pilot which gave him considerable experience operating on type but not the exploratory nature of A&AEE's and Handling Squadron's work. We were offered the latter's conclusions but nothing of substance as to how they were reached. On past (and present) records we are unlikely ever to be so informed !
From the very limited portions of the programme dealing with known crew activity, the absence of basic airmanship principles leaves inevitable unasked/unanswered questions, leaving us with a 'hearts and flowers' concoction.
Overall then, not hugely impressed and left with an itch to know more.
When I first heard the news of the crash, I immediately thought Mt Erebus and Air New Zealand.and, so far, subsequent (very limited) revelations haven't changed that. (I am, of course aware of the inertial input error which exacerbated that situation)
One final thought on the BOI's judgement - I seem to recall that it completely exonerated the Master Loadie from any blame, yet he was, apparently, operating from the jump seat ...perhaps CRM wasn't part of the SOPs ?
An itch to know more
We all have that itch.
Don't be defeatist. The public record can be improved, if all documents are released.
Why did 30 staff sit in the West Country holding the line about pilot error if the evidence was so overwhelming. A junior typist could hold the line if the case had nothing to hide.
Bob Burke was indeed the unit test pilot and I think it fair to say he understood the exploratory nature of Boscombe Down. After all, he flew the Mark Two being tested in Wiltshire back to Odiham in Hants after the crash because the test pilots at BD refused. He also knew both Jon and Rick. Oh, and Rick increased his life insurance in the weeks before the crash because he didnt like what he was seeing with the Mark Two.
Of course the programme would have needed a third episode to highlight the MoD successfully sued the engine manufacturers yet this evidence was not presented to the BoI. Or the SoS.
And just to complete the circle, quick question. When was the Mark Three introduced and how many flew?
Don't be defeatist. The public record can be improved, if all documents are released.
Why did 30 staff sit in the West Country holding the line about pilot error if the evidence was so overwhelming. A junior typist could hold the line if the case had nothing to hide.
Bob Burke was indeed the unit test pilot and I think it fair to say he understood the exploratory nature of Boscombe Down. After all, he flew the Mark Two being tested in Wiltshire back to Odiham in Hants after the crash because the test pilots at BD refused. He also knew both Jon and Rick. Oh, and Rick increased his life insurance in the weeks before the crash because he didnt like what he was seeing with the Mark Two.
Of course the programme would have needed a third episode to highlight the MoD successfully sued the engine manufacturers yet this evidence was not presented to the BoI. Or the SoS.
And just to complete the circle, quick question. When was the Mark Three introduced and how many flew?