Chinook ZD576 - The Concealed Evidence
“If one asks the MoD for the official record, it will supply the original report. Negligent to a gross degree. Manslaughter. The truth remains concealed.”
Perhaps this should be the focus leading up to the 30th Anniversary?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
Further on from the link above, links to both episodes on iplayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...t_bbc_team=BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...t_bbc_team=BBC
Hello Top West, could you elaborate are you agreeing with the Gross Negligence finding or that there was a bulk of evidence that the Chinhook wasn't remotely airworthy that day and it's very plausible that it suffered from an UFCM or control jam over which they had no control unfortunately about 500' away from a cliff to their right?
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
. In accordance with the legal guidance at the time, I did not find any of the crew to have been negligent (despite a lot of compelling evidence). I should think, but I don't know, that the President of the Chinook Board came to his conclusions in a similar way? I am sure, however, that he and his members did their honest best with the information they had at the time to discharge their duty in accordance with the direction of the Convening Authority. I apologise if this is obvious to other readers but the Convening Authority need not accept the findings of the Board, either in whole or part. All that became a matter of public record and it must stand. Grievance, I suggest, should be a different process.
"Convening Authority need not accept the findings of the Board, either in whole or part.". Indeed, and therein lies the Achilles Heel of the RAF/MOD Air Safety system, whereby the perpetrators, ie those operating an aircraft with an illegal RTS can override a BoI that does not produce the required result, ie finding the pilots to be Grossly Negligent! That is why Air Accident Investigation (and Air Safety Regulation) must be independent of the operator (the RAF/MOD).
"All that became a matter of public record and it must stand. Grievance, I suggest, should be a different process". No, it mustn't stand, it must be challenged and reform enacted! The cover up must end; it has cost lives, treasure, and UK Air Power. It will go on doing so unless it ends and Air Safety reform is commenced.
Not sure what the last sentence even means. Care to explain?
Hello Top West, could you elaborate are you agreeing with the Gross Negligence finding or that there was a bulk of evidence that the Chinhook wasn't remotely airworthy that day and it's very plausible that it suffered from an UFCM or control jam over which they had no control unfortunately about 500' away from a cliff to their right?
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
Top West 50,
Was that the Shackleton CFIT accident?
Was that the Shackleton CFIT accident?
.... and the subsequent list of "previous" was eye-wateringly long!!! 
Cheers, H 'n' H
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 12th Mar 2024 at 12:04.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Sir John Days Obituary in The Telegraph quite glosses over this whole episode. As can be seen I served on 72 when he was the boss and one couldn't have wished for a more decent fellow. However, I cannot agree at all with the decisions made in this instance. I watched the documentary and, having flown on numerous air tests with Bobby Burke I was amazed to see that he has hardly changed over the decades. Nothing new really came to light in the BBC program, all those who know, know it was a whitewash but sadly mud sticks.
Thread Starter
Sir John Days Obituary in The Telegraph quite glosses over this whole episode. As can be seen I served on 72 when he was the boss and one couldn't have wished for a more decent fellow. However, I cannot agree at all with the decisions made in this instance. I watched the documentary and, having flown on numerous air tests with Bobby Burke I was amazed to see that he has hardly changed over the decades. Nothing new really came to light in the BBC program, all those who know, know it was a whitewash but sadly mud sticks.
I had no idea that the "RAF News", aka Pravda in my years in the service, was still going. That it allowed those comments to be published in Day's obit was inexcusable, but kudos to both JN for his timely letter and to the editorial staff for publishing the letter. I'm saddened that such attempts to airbrush the record may, if unchallenged, affect the way the young folk currently crewing RAF aircraft view the tragedy and its true cause(s).
The following users liked this post:
Chug
Are you mellowing in old age? Mr Hill's book, the subject of this thread, offers proof in the form of MoD papers that flying the Mark 2 was not 'in effect' forbidden, but absolutely forbidden. Lord Philips agreed.
Are you mellowing in old age? Mr Hill's book, the subject of this thread, offers proof in the form of MoD papers that flying the Mark 2 was not 'in effect' forbidden, but absolutely forbidden. Lord Philips agreed.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I'm banged to rights, dervish, and no mistake! An unfortunate choice of words by me, and you were right to bring me to book (I've just seen what I did there!). The old age tag is certainly true too, though probably unlawful these days.
T&B, yes I too remember it as Pravda though I never subscribed. There was sometimes the odd copy though in the Crew Room, which usually confirmed the justice of its sobriquet.
The star chamber still clings to the ROs' finding, for what else can it do? If Gross Pilot negligence isn't to blame for 29 deaths then what is? As you say, dervish, David Hill has provided what a decent accident investigator could have done years ago if it were independent of the operator. Sadly it wasn't and still isn't, and the cover up continues as do the lies. Their Greatest Disgrace, indeed.
T&B, yes I too remember it as Pravda though I never subscribed. There was sometimes the odd copy though in the Crew Room, which usually confirmed the justice of its sobriquet.
The star chamber still clings to the ROs' finding, for what else can it do? If Gross Pilot negligence isn't to blame for 29 deaths then what is? As you say, dervish, David Hill has provided what a decent accident investigator could have done years ago if it were independent of the operator. Sadly it wasn't and still isn't, and the cover up continues as do the lies. Their Greatest Disgrace, indeed.
The following 5 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
Chug
In fairness to the accident investigator Tony Cable - who was an excellent chap indeed, who was adamant both then and now that there was not much evidence at the crash site to go on (so bad was the impact and ensuing fire). But he did say the "Absence of Evidence is no way the same as Evidence of Absence" (referring to failures and faults and what the BOI and ROs inferred to mean the ac was 'serviceable'). Its been shown that the ac may have been serviceable but definitely wasn't 'airworthy' as the RTS was a fabrication.
It was also TC (and Rob Burke) who identified similar airworthiness failings in a Chinook crash in the FI in 1987.
I am sure you don't mean to cast aspersions at TC individually - more that you point the finger at the whole BOI process, mostly at the totally ineffective and jaundiced oversight by SROs which was very badly flawed - I think we can all agree on that. (The 1980 Tench Report is clear on this).
Don't forget that Rob Burke was controversially DIRECTLY ORDERED (by OC Ops Odiham) not to assist TC and the BOI in any way in Jun 1994....I wonder if that man has ever stopped to ask why? Why would senior Air Officers want to interfere with an investigation? ...I cant think!
Furthermore, I have seen a copy of the original BOI where it is so obvious that the words of the Chair of the BOI and Stn Cdr Odiham have been altered. perhaps more than once (under duress?).....more outside interference?
At least now, the DAAIB has properly trained investigators embedded within team - which is also more separate from the CoC. However, there is still too close a link with that chain perhaps as many are serving officers with annual reports to be written by the self-same CoC? I'm sure there are other issues with DAAIB but its definitely a step ahead of 1994. Also we have a more Just Culture (or so we are told)...but I hear you nonetheless!
Having said all that.....What if the equivalent of ZD576 were to happen tomorrow (foreign design, integration problems, no FDR, no survivors etc)? I wonder whether the modern investigation process would find out what the MOKG and Dave Hill & Co have done since and leading up to the Philip Inquiry.....doubt it. I was asked this question by the ZD576 BOI President - I said as much and he didn't correct me.
In fairness to the accident investigator Tony Cable - who was an excellent chap indeed, who was adamant both then and now that there was not much evidence at the crash site to go on (so bad was the impact and ensuing fire). But he did say the "Absence of Evidence is no way the same as Evidence of Absence" (referring to failures and faults and what the BOI and ROs inferred to mean the ac was 'serviceable'). Its been shown that the ac may have been serviceable but definitely wasn't 'airworthy' as the RTS was a fabrication.
It was also TC (and Rob Burke) who identified similar airworthiness failings in a Chinook crash in the FI in 1987.
I am sure you don't mean to cast aspersions at TC individually - more that you point the finger at the whole BOI process, mostly at the totally ineffective and jaundiced oversight by SROs which was very badly flawed - I think we can all agree on that. (The 1980 Tench Report is clear on this).
Don't forget that Rob Burke was controversially DIRECTLY ORDERED (by OC Ops Odiham) not to assist TC and the BOI in any way in Jun 1994....I wonder if that man has ever stopped to ask why? Why would senior Air Officers want to interfere with an investigation? ...I cant think!
Furthermore, I have seen a copy of the original BOI where it is so obvious that the words of the Chair of the BOI and Stn Cdr Odiham have been altered. perhaps more than once (under duress?).....more outside interference?
At least now, the DAAIB has properly trained investigators embedded within team - which is also more separate from the CoC. However, there is still too close a link with that chain perhaps as many are serving officers with annual reports to be written by the self-same CoC? I'm sure there are other issues with DAAIB but its definitely a step ahead of 1994. Also we have a more Just Culture (or so we are told)...but I hear you nonetheless!
Having said all that.....What if the equivalent of ZD576 were to happen tomorrow (foreign design, integration problems, no FDR, no survivors etc)? I wonder whether the modern investigation process would find out what the MOKG and Dave Hill & Co have done since and leading up to the Philip Inquiry.....doubt it. I was asked this question by the ZD576 BOI President - I said as much and he didn't correct me.
Flipster and Chug. From memory, although I've read the books again recently, Mr Hill discusses these issues at length. He obviously knows Mr Cable and Squadron Leader Burke very well and points out that both were astonished at the concealed evidence that emerged, and very keen to discuss this with the Review. Particularly that physical evidence was removed from the crash site before Mr Cable arrived, meaning it could not be part of his report. He was told the MoD examined it separately, and so were the lords I think, but they now admit they didn't and won't say what happened to it. Talking of investigators, it seems the reports from the other AAIB investigators have never been released and were never mentioned by the BOI. I'm sure you know all this!
Thread Starter
Flipster, I absolutely do not cast aspersions whatsoever at Tony Cable, quite the opposite. He wasn't a member of the BoI though, merely there to assist it. As with all such assistance, it could be utilised to the full or not. Rather like the only eye witness interviewed of the a/c's short transit across the sea, the so called 'lone yachtsman' (who wasn't alone!). He could have given so much more information if only the board had asked him the right questions. It didn't, so he couldn't. It would have clashed with the VSO 'reconstruction' presentation to the HoC Committee. Whether the BoI was so feeble because that was its brief, or it simply wasn't professional enough, or evidence was deliberately withheld from it, or all of those things, is open to question. Whatever, it is a damning indictment of UK Military Air Accident Investigation. It, and Military Air Regulation, needs to be separate from the MOD and from each other.
UK Military Air Safety now depends on good intentions, that those with the power to intervene and subvert investigations, won't. That's probably all that kept my little pink body safe when I depended on the likes of tucumseh to ensure that my aircraft were airworthy. All that changed when RAF VSOs illegally raided ring fenced Air Safety budgets to cover the losses incurred by a disastrous and incompetent AMSO policy. Hence the loss of UK Military Airworthiness, hence Mull, and all the other airworthiness related fatal air accidents that litter this forum. Is that all over now and we can put it all behind us and move on? Not by a long shot in my view. The cover up has to end and admitted to, and Accident Investigation and Air Regulation made independent of the operator (the MOD). Otherwise it will simply be deja vu all over again.
UK Military Air Safety now depends on good intentions, that those with the power to intervene and subvert investigations, won't. That's probably all that kept my little pink body safe when I depended on the likes of tucumseh to ensure that my aircraft were airworthy. All that changed when RAF VSOs illegally raided ring fenced Air Safety budgets to cover the losses incurred by a disastrous and incompetent AMSO policy. Hence the loss of UK Military Airworthiness, hence Mull, and all the other airworthiness related fatal air accidents that litter this forum. Is that all over now and we can put it all behind us and move on? Not by a long shot in my view. The cover up has to end and admitted to, and Accident Investigation and Air Regulation made independent of the operator (the MOD). Otherwise it will simply be deja vu all over again.
The following 6 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
The following users liked this post:
