Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
 

This is a continuation of "Chinook - Still Hitting Back" http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=73&t=000045

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]

Thanks for starting the new thread Mik. Sorry that it takes up so much of the server. Hopefully not for much longer!!

As I.3VStall says at the end of the last thread, only 12 more names are needed to reach the magic 300 on the petition. If you have signed up, thank you. If you haven't perhaps you would consider signing and also passing the details to friends and colleagues. Every name is important.

Check out the site: http://www.chinook-justice.org

I'll keep updating as and when there is something to tell.

Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

More names posted to the site - 293 now :-)

I've also added a couple of links, including one I came across to the BBC transcript of Wratten being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. If you didn't see it then, read it now. If you did see it then, read it now anyway, and savour the arrogance :-)

The arrogance beggars belief!

:mad:

No he's a RAF Air Officer!

The Paxman/Wratten link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/eve...00/1050467.stm

Jesus!

:mad: :confused:

Well don't that take the biscuit? Wratten calls himself a commander. As I recall, commanders must lead by example, with all the necessary care and comfort of the men they command taken fully into account.

He merely sweeps those required attributes aside to impress us that he was a good commander.

I wish I could say to him, that a good commander would NOT try to crucify TWO good men until it was manifestly and blatantly clear, beyond ANY doubt, that they were guilty of negligence. Neither he nor Day have been able to do that. Unless, of course, I am complete idiot and have NO conception about what I have read and heard.

So, as that doubt is now abundantly clear, I think that this poor, feeble excuse for a commander enjoyed his power, and used it as Paxman says to protect his precious Chinooks.

What kind of justification is that?

Oh how I wish I knew for sure he reads the Mil Forum on PPRuNe!

Hi all, here's the latest brief from Parliament:

The Inquiry into the 1994 Chinook Helicopter Crash

The first set of evidence includes the internal MoD Inquiry previously treated as confidential

The House of Lords Select Committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook ZD 576 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 has published the first volume of evidence.

The aircraft crashed into the Mull of Kintyre on the 2nd June 1994 in bad weather, all 4 crew members and 25 civilian and military passengers on board were killed, the helicopter was carrying senior Northern Ireland Security personnel. The MoD internal inquiry found that the pilots of the Helicopter were grossly negligent, the House of Lords decided to conduct an Inquiry to consider whether the MoD were right to blame the pilots for the crash.

This volume of Evidence includes the text of the formal MoD Inquiry into the crash and the Official Statement by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Both Reports have previously been treated as “Confidential” and therefore had a very restricted circulation. Between them these detailed Reports contain technical assessments of the circumstances of the crash along with diagrams and photographs from the crash site itself and conclusions as to the likely cause.

This publication includes the transcripts of the Committee’s first round of hearings in September, with evidence from members of the RAF board of Inquiry, the AAIB, and the pilots’ Fathers. The Committee’s final Report into the crash is expected in the New Year.

To order please call the Parliamentary Hotline on 08457 023 474 quoting reference BND or click on the following link to order online: https://www.clicktso.com/bookstore.asp?FO=32180&Action=AddItem&ProductID=0104420227.

Price £18.50
ISBN – 0 10 442022 7

For the first time, both the BoI and AAIB are being made available to the public. Order your copy to get the facts.

Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

As a silent observer here, that link to the Paxman event is outrageous. Good job he [WR]isn't trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans!! What sort of system can create a monster like that? :mad:

The magic 300 names has been achieved! Thanks to everyone who has signed up to the petition so far. It's not too late, and every one counts. www.chinook-justice.org

Just to echo Chock's comments. Thank you.

Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

I did not see Paxman but thanks for posting the links guys. I am astonished by the stance which Wratten adopted. He has the nerve to talk about 'Integrity'. Well like InFinR, I too would love to think that Wratten reads this forum, "because your integrity is in question Wratten", are you troubled by that?. Furthermore, the comment that the members of the board were young officers who do not possess the experience that he (WR) does is staggering. Perhaps in future Air Marshal, to save everybody the apparent waste of effort all BOIs should be comprised of and run by officers of air rank only.

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Tigs ]

I think I'm right in saying that the two 'junior' officers on the BoI, who were the pilot specialists, had about 2000 hours each on the Chinook. Mr Wratten was a fixed wing driver.

Call me old fashioned if you will but, between the two, I think I know who had the most experience on rotary.

I do, however, acknowledge the fact that Air Marshal Day was an experienced helicopter pilot.

Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

There's a bunch of new names going on the petition tonight -plenty of room for more!

The Herald reports today that the Lords' Enquiry report is expected to be published in the 1st week of Feb 02 and quotes a 'senior peer' as saying that it is expected that the pilots will be exonerated.

Here's hoping the press have got it right for once!

Hi everyone,
It would appear that Mr Wratten has been invited to give a briefing to peers in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wed 28th Nov). The briefing was arranged by Lord Craig and has the backing of Lords Graydon and Johns.

Hardly cricket! Is there an invitation to Rick and Jon's fathers? Nope! Why not???

Are you worried about something Mr Wratten? Do you feel the need to pre-empt a group of learned people who may, at some point in the future, be debating over your verdict? Why the need to do this? Has your moral courage deserted you?

Shameful conduct if you ask me.

Regards all
Brian :mad:
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Brian,

This is absolutely outrageous. Another example of unacceptable cronyism. For those that don't recognise the names of the three Lords mentioned in Brian's post, they are all retired Air Marshals.

This seems to me to be little more than a cynical attempt to unfairly influence the outcome of the Inquiry. Is there anything we can do? Has anyone got any bright ideas?

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]

1.3v
The only answer is to go public -Today!! The press would have a Ball!

Don't worry about it too much. A number of eyebrows are being raised in the HoL about this tactic. It can't influence the findings of the committee - they have heard all the evidence from both sides already.

The problem is that, unchallenged, the Wratten brief is pretty convincing - those of us who know the case can show how his briefing is full of holes but as a "stand alone" piece of spin it is pretty good.

Still, we have put our faith in the committee and we have to wait to see their verdict.

The RAF & MOD have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to stop any debate on this subject. We can only hope that the Lords recognize the Graydon/Wratten ploy as the desperate measure, by desperate men on the run, that it is.

For those of you who don't read the Grauniad!

RAF chiefs woo lords in Chinook challenge

Retired officers fight to keep blame on dead aircrew

Stuart Millar
Wednesday November 28, 2001
The Guardian

Some of the RAF's senior former officers have been accused of challenging the authority of parliament by trying to pre-empt the findings of an inquiry into the air force's worst peacetime disaster.
Two months before a special select committee of the House of Lords is due to deliver its findings on the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 with the loss of all 29 on board, the group of retired top brass will tonight begin a campaign to sidestep the committee and win over peers to the official RAF version of events that the pilots were to blame.

The Lords inquiry was charged with examining whether the verdict of gross negligence against the pilots of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 - in effect a verdict of manslaughter - was justified when the RAF's own rules at the time stated that only in cases where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" could deceased aircrew be blamed. Since the loss of ZD576, evidence has emerged that the fleet was experiencing technical problems which, campaigners argue, could have contributed to the crash.

The committee finished hearing evidence last month and is due to produce its findings by January 31 .

But in a move described by one critic as the "RAF establishment getting its retaliation in first", peers have received an invitation to a meeting today at which retired Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten will explain why he and the then Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day found the pilots guilty of gross negligence.

Details of the meeting, organised by Lord Craig, a former Chief of Defence Staff and Marshal of the RAF, were obtained by the Guardian and Computer Weekly, which has played a key role in uncovering evidence of technical failures in the Chinook fleet.

The invitation is accompanied by a letter containing criticism of the Lords committee and its handling of the inquiry from Sir Michael Graydon and Sir Richard Johns, the chiefs of air staff at the time of the crash.

The letter from Sir Michael and Sir Richard opens: "For those unfamiliar with aviation matters and flying in particular, it is not easy to understand... the complexities which are raised in an aircraft accident investigation. Equally, what is clear to a pilot through his/her own experience may be far from obvious to those who have no flying experience."

It continues: "The select committee has spent much of its time examining possible technical failings... These technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrelevant."

Lord Chalfont, chairman of the all-party Mull of Kintyre group which led the campaign for a Lords inquiry, said: "This seems to be suggesting that the only people who can handle this thing are senior RAF officers and everybody else should just stay out of it.

"A lot of peers have said to me that this raises a dangerous constitutional point because they seem to be setting themselves up as being above parliament."

The letter is also being taken as criticism of the Commons public accounts committee, which produced a damning report in November last year accusing the the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance" over the Chinook crash.

David Davis, then chairman of the PAC and now Tory party chairman, described today's meeting as "inappropriate".

The MoD said that it had nothing to do with the meeting.

Can anyone out there post the text of the Graydon/Johns letter? From the excerpts in the Grauniad article it looks like another example of "unwarrantable arrogance" by their Airships.

So only an aviator can understand the complexities of this accident? Hmmm, excuse me Messrs Graydon and Johns, but that is exactly what the President of the BOI was - and an experienced Chinook operator to boot. He didn't arrive at a verdict of "gross neglience" did he? Ah, of course, how stupid of me; you need to be both an aviator and an arrogant airship to be able to dismiss technical hypotheses (by such august bodies as the AAIB et al) as irrelevant.

Just exactly who do these people think they are? Do they think that by drawing Wratten into their cosy circle of establishment cronyism they can protect him from the results of the HoL Inquiry? I hope their little ploy fails.
Unwarrantable arrogance - too bl**dy right - I'm really mad about this.

Rant over!

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]

I find it hard to see what Wrotten hopes to gain from this. Presumably he hopes that Peers who were not part of the Inquiry Committee will vote down its conclusions and recommendations.

I don't know about Ad Hoc inquiry committees, but decisions of the Law Lords are (technically) recommendations to the House and are 'voted' on when judgment is given. The last time a lay-lord intervened in judgment was when Lord Denman intervened at judgment in the case of Bradlaugh v Clarke in 1883, but it is not clear whether his vote was counted and it did not affect the decision. No lay Lord has sought to intervene in the consideration of an appeal since.

For individual peers in the House in general not to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee chaired by a law lord would be tantamout to acting as Lord
Denman attempted to do.

I fear that even queenie Wratten's delusional nature has really over-extended iself this time. Incidentally, this month's Chartered Inst of Personnel Mgmt (CIPD) mag has an interesting article on 'Working for a Bastard'. It points out that it is psychological insecurity that makes people into bastards. Anyone care to start a list for the RAF's biggest bastard of the last 25 years?

Well it looks like their Lord Airships have overstepped the mark a little. Perhaps 3 more to join the que for resignations from office. Hasn't Wratten picked up on one of the first rules of life - When you find yourself digging a hole, stop digging.

If and it is only an if the HoL committee found that the initial rulings should stand, the 'Marx Brothers' have thankfully paved the way for the next hearing, brought about by behind the doors coniving and conspiring, or methinks trying to pervert the course of justice?

You can run but you can't hide!

dear oh dear oh dear.
this strikes me as the petulance of a condemned man.
i'm afraid Lords Graydon and Johns et al have displayed a naivety only demonstrable by people who have been sheltered from the real world for the majority of their careers. These people have (and in some cases continue to do so) acted as judge, jury and executioner in many cases. The majority of these cases are only capable of being examined at Judicial Review. If DLS (discount laughable serfs) opine the case is questionable they settle, ergo there is no investigation into an invalid decision. Consequently the net result is a mindset which dictates that one is above question, examination and ultimately above the law(unwarrantable arrogance).

Their Lord ex Airships have demonstrated a monumental error in judgement (IMHO). The house of lords is the highest court in the land. The law lords, in order to be appointed, must have displayed an almost unmatched knowledge of the law (unsurprisingly), and be of the utmost integrity and impartiality. if the law lords decide a point of law in a case before them, then their judgement passes into law as precedent...I think you get the picture.

The house of lords are fundamentally aware of the stature and importance of the law lords. The fact that they (airships)consider themselves capable of taking the law lords on, on what is essentially a point of law (discharge of burden of proof) is laughable.
I can only hope that the rest of the house view the event as a serious attempt at circumventing due process, and that it was a blatant attempt to destroy the credibility of the committee before it had the opportunity to publish its findings. :(

Furthermore, in attempting this act of cronyism Graydon and johns et al have demonstrated they are unsuitable to remain as members of the house, as they have no fundamental understanding of what is required of a peer, and how to conduct oneself as such.

I'll get your coats.

It is beyond belief that this super arrogant man Wratten now wishes to extend his arrogance still further by trying to gain the confidence of Lords Graydon and Johns. That THEY let him is absolutely amazing.

In similar circumstances, in a court of law, it is almost tantamount to interfereing with the jury.

However, I agree with JN. I think Wratten finds himself in a corner, a scared rat, looking to get support from other rats. I do think he is running scared because it has come home to him that their Lordships have done their job with due dilligence. I like to think that they would not allow Wratten, who has already had his say, to be allowed to sway them.

However, there is the all important vote on their Lordships findings to come.

Let us hope that it will put Wratten's name where it belongs, with Day's, but sadly, in the annals of RAF infamy.

forgot to mention above that the uncorrected evidence of the final day of the committee's hearing has been added to the hansard pages.
would do one of those link thingys but you confuse me with someone who knows anything about compooters.

it now appears that day and wratten have "adapted" their reasons for their findings in light of evidence previously unavailable to them.

i could not make the hearing in person, nor did i catch it on the parliamentary channel, so i am not privy to the tone adopted by wratten, but he appears to display open hostility towards the committee. day was also caught out attempting to lie about previous evidence.

perhaps the most telling evidence was offered by air commodore crawford, in that he had great difficulty in determining what the burden of proof (no doubt whatsoever) actually meant. he claimed the wording he used was clumsy as "he was not legally trained"

this was later reiterated by day, who also pointed out that his knowledge was limited due to no formal legal training.

did someone say bandwagon?

I've got the letter Graydon & Johns sent to the Lords - I don't want to publish the full text but the most important part is contained in the Gruniad piece:

"for those unfamiliar with aviation matters...it is not easy to understand the many complexities..."

"The Select Committee has spent much of its time in its hearings examining possible technical failings....when it can be shown that clearly that the Chinook was seviceable, these technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrrelevant."

Now that't what I call arrogance!!!!!

So, Herr (or Herren?) Wratten, the fact that almost every person who has heard BOTH sides of the argument accepts that there is doubt simply means that we are stupid?

Just to reiterate Mr Wratten, you don't have one single jot of evidence to support your case that the Chinook was serviceable. Not a jot.

You are going to fail, you deserve to fail and I know of not one person in the RAF who will shed a single tear at your downfall.

I am still seething about this.

That Wratten, Day - and now Craig, Graydon and Johns - are so utterly convinced of their own infallibility simply beggars belief.

(Perhaps the clue lies in that they have all in their time played a significant part in the continuing and irreversible decline in what was once a proud Service? Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind).

Their unwarrantable arrogance enables them to summarily dismiss any witness who has the temerity to differ from their collective view, no matter what that witness's experience and credibility.

I submit, sirs, that you are a disgrace and an affront to the uniform that I once wore with pride. This affair is not going to go away. I concur with JN; you are going to fail and then the only honourable way out for all of you will be the tradition of the samurai!

In the interests of accuracy, I should like to point out the following:

Neither Michael Graydon nor Richard Johns are members of the House of Lords (yet).

The House of Lords Committee enquiring into this accident is quite separate from the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity (ie as the final court of appeal in the UK).

I have no axe to grind in this matter, but let's not bring the sloppy journalistic style of the 'red top' newspapers to this serious debate.

An update on yesterday's Wratten roadshow -

Apparently the grand total of 20 members of the HofL turned up for his comedy act - this included a number that support our case who went along out of interest. Wratten looked pretty sad and crestfallen at the dismal turnout.

In the words of one who was there, it was a "non-event".

Glad to see Wratten and his cohorts continue to embarrass themselves in public. What is truly sad is that the RAF is going to come out of this badly - it should never have got this far.

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]

Broadsword,
firstly, thank you for correcting my error - the assumption that Messrs Graydon and Johns were Lords. There was no intent to mislead. No offence taken either.

20 people eh? Something to tell their grandchildren I suppose. "I was there.... etc"

If you do read this thread Mr Wratten, may I say that I am fully prepared to accept the decision of their Lordships - whatever the outcome. They have conducted their Inquiry with dignity, fairness and impartiality. I, for one, have no doubt about their integrity.
You, on the other hand, obviously do.

Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

As I had previously said, and JN has said again, that Wratten and Day, but more recently Wratten because Day cannot be seen to be lobbying while a serving AM, have bought shame upon the Royal Air Force whose cherished name they both had a sworn duty to uphold. Wratten sneeringly gives the impression, probably because that is what I want to think, that it is HIS air force.

Wratten I have news for you. The Royal Air Force is bigger than both of you and God knows it will survive. You, of course, will not.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do hope they read these pages!

PPP,

More eloquently put than my own rantings and the sentiment is right on!

Before our soiree in Oman I hadn't met Day (had met Wratten - covered in the original thread on this accident). Day had the cheek to suggest, in Muscat, that flight safety issues should not be used as blackmail for better living conditions. Charming! But it gives a tiny insight into what passes for the mans brain - "Don't make you're problem mine".

Mr B,

May we then assume that, to show solidarity with his crews, Day slept in a tent at the side of the runway during his ever-so-essential visit to the Gulf?

No way did he sleep in the camp! I'm not sure he even stayed overnight in the area. Other senior officers WERE downtown in hotels..........and we were instructed to stay away from them. But this is a subject for another forum...not here.

Whatever the outcome of this enquiry, my personal verdict will remain the same as it was seven years ago when my letter pointing out this gross injustice was published in Flight International.

I for one am happy to be no longer serving in the presence of such narrow minded and vindictive men intent in shifting the guilt of others to dead men. :mad:

Shyte

Hear Hear!

The latest ploy by Wrotten simply reinforces my view of the underhand jerk. Their Lordships were obviously not impressed by these two clowns.

They still miss the point entirely by saying that the select committee required specific aviation knowledge.

It was not a new BOI or AAIB investigation, it was an investigation into the decision by Day and Wratten to bring in a finding of Gross Negligence with no evidence to support it.

That committee simply needed common sense and a legal background. It possessed both in abundance.

I guess that Wratten's unwarrantable arrogance still refuses to believe that its his judgement in question here, and not why ZD576 crashed.

Back to the top
and check out parliament
house of lords
select committees
chinook inquiry

A page or so back it was suggested, I think, that ACM Wratten was presenting to the House of Lords under arrangements sponsored by MRAF Craig amongst others. It was also mentioned that MoD considered this a matter outwith their control / interest.

Do not MRAFs, in common with other *****s, remain on the active list for life?