Airfix,

Your view is as valid as any other. You will know that not one of us here holds that it is impossible that the pilots were negligent. We simply ask that it be proved to the standard required that they were.

If you have indeed read everything available, then how can you assert that the helicopter should have been climbed (presumably to SALT). To the best of the pilots' knowlede, the +4 deg C isotherm (Chinook Mk2 limit) was at 2500', well below SALT.

Very good point indeed,

Just highlights what one misses whilst reading these reports! Apologies for my previous sweeping statement. It was not as well founded as I thought - either side presents a very different outlook on events...

Apro po Brian Day's descriptions: I thought the terms used by BOIs were "culpable negligence" and "excuseable negligence".

Airfix,

If you were to go back a couple of years, you'd find a similar sweeping statement from a bloke called Arkroyal!

Welcome on board:p

airfix

Glad to see you’re widely read. Sorry it does take more than two hours; but it’s worth it. I think you’ll agree that the discussion is no longer about flying. It all boils down to legal questions about -

The standard of proof - ‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’ – a very high standard; and
Evidence – distinguishing between fact and presumption, even though it is very convincing presumption.

It is not necessary to be convinced that the pilots could do no wrong. This point of view is appreciated but you don't have to hold this view in order to agree that the BoI was wrong.

On questions of law I bow to Law Lords every time.

MHP

Everyone is quite keen to "prove" whether or not the crew could have safely climbed to safety altitude. Most of us who have spent many hours in cloud know that it is a very variable and unpredictable phenomenon. Cloud type, water droplet size, terrain mixing, aircraft speed, blade angles, inlet design etc etc etc, would all have had an effect on how that particular aircraft would have iced up on that particular occasion. Had they attempted to climb (anyone established they didn't?), they could have hit severe iceing at 500', 10000' or not at all. 1.98 degree lapse rates only occur in the theoetical world.

A copy of a letter from Adam Ingram to my local MP was forwarded to me today by him. It reads:

"Dear (MP),

Thank you for your letter of 22 July to Geoff Hoon enclosing one from your constituent (BEagle) about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

(BEagle) asks about the further work that we have commissioned from Boeing, and I should explain that although the Mull Board of Inquiry finding did not rely on Boeing's work, it was important that we sought clarification from the Company about the Chinook Select Committee's comments. We also asked Boeing to review their original flight profile analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.

Copies of this work, together with the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, were placed in the Library of both Houses on Monday 22 July 2002. This should allow ample time for appropriate scrutiny before the debate in the House of Lords after the Summer Recess.

On the matter of Boeing's further work, I would also stress that such simulations are an analysis tool, looking at probabilities and likelihood. Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction; rather it has provided greater understanding of the aircraft's capabilities and constraints. In doing so, it seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses which have been put forward to explain the crash.

Yours aye

AI"

Well. Let me think for a moment. "probabilities and likelihood", "Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction", "seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses"..................

Doesn't sound as though Boeing's simulation was able to rule out the possibility of a malfunction 'with no possible doubt whatsoever'.....

Is it worth posting that letter back to AI in the hope that he may read the self-contradictory drivel and see it for what it is?

These people are either on stuck transmit with no opportunity for self-monitoring or have cretins writing letters in their name.
:mad:

yetti,

Not quite sure what your point is.... but agree with your post.

Further back in this (or previous) thread you'll see that these crews were also under threat of draconian measures if they exceeded the icing limits. It is not for us to prove whether or not they could have climbed, the doubt simply removes one of the concrete bastions upon which Wratten and Day damned Jon's and Rick's reputations.

Having attempted cloud penetration in icing conditions to avoid high ground in a Wessex, I can tell you it led to a frightening conclusion. (and this with a couple of UXBs underslung).

SH pilots do not include crystal balls in their flight kit, and can only fly to the forecast or actual conditions.

Ingram's letter beggars belief. How can one so lacking in logical thought hold such high office? As usual his woolly words just strengthen our case!

I would remind him:

Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.

Brian

Referring to BEag's post above, Boeing's 'work' is in the House of Commons and House of Lords libraries.
Is there any way to get hold of this and post it here?

MHP

Having now read the HoL report I am inclined to agree with AirfixPilot that pressonitis was a factor. The cloud base crossing the North Channel must have been lower than they were expecting. The report mentions a visibility of less than 50 metres at the lighthouse. This means the cloud base must have been less than 400 FT. If the Chinook was at around the same height it would have been very difficult to see anything.

The statement from the yachtsman eye witness must be taken with a pinch of salt - he saw the Chinook and the Mull so they must have seen it as well. What about the old chestnut of airbourne flight visibility.

Given the poorer weather they encountered and the problems of climbing into potential icing conditions, turning back might have been a better choice but they had the passnegers!!!!

At the end of the day though all this is supposition and with the lack of hard evidence I also find it incredible that to BoI came to such a dogmatic conclusion.

Arkroyal, Wratten in one of his earlier statements, made it clear that in his opinion, given the forecast surface temperature, and (his) assessment of SALT, a climb to this SALT was a viable option. We can never be sure if some sort of climb was not attempted, and temperature or iceing encountered, forced a descent and rethink? Probably not, but the iceing risk would have almost certainly been a major player if and when the pilots discussed their options. Did they discuss them? who knows. Did they climb and encounter iceing and if so did this force them to descend again? Who can say for certain. What we all lack is the crystal ball. What most of us accept that we can never know what exactly happened. It is only Wratten , Day and those at MOD who have the blinding arrogance to KNOW.

Hi everyone,
OK let's try and catch up.....

212 - I took the negligence terms and definition from the slides presented to the Lords Select Committee. Obviously what the Air Marshals used in order to help them reach their decision.

Ark - I remember your first post. And my somewhat curt reply :p

Beags - Your letter has the typical 'cut and paste' opener. This surely proves that the Ministers are simply repeating what is put to them by the MoD. Further proof that it is they who are calling the shots and not the elected Members. If you do write back pointing out his contradictions, ask if he is comfortable being told what to do by the unelected.

Oh I See - I think the record is stuck!

Millhampost - I'll see what I can do. If I can get it, I'll post. I seem to recall that Minister Hoon stated twice that it would be made available, so I don't see a problem.

03066 - Good recovery on your last sentence! That's the whole point of the campaign. There is a lack of hard evidence. Therefore the verdict can't stand.

Yetti - Mr Wratten was a fast jet driver. I just wonder if he was thinking through the process in that capacity, rather than rotory. I don't know.

I wasn't going to mention it as it sounds too much like the old 'blowing one's own trumpet'. But....... Flyer magazine kindly printed an article for me in their latest edition - My thanks to Ian Seager and his team.

What Ian has offered to do is send a copy of the magazine to every MP that has taken the trouble to sign the EDM, and to Ministers Blair and Hoon. (They got a free 'Irritating Sod' business card too :D)

As a result of the article, I have recieved a number of new enquiries / support / comments.

So, not a trumpet blowing exercise, but a public thank you to all at Flyer.

Hope that's in order.

Keep going folks. They must know by now that we're not going away!!!

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

Brian

Thanks for your thanks, but compared to you and many many other people I have done very little. My offer stands, should you want any updates, or requests for action published just let me know.

Best wishes

Ian

You are so modest Ian. What you did is terrific, and typical of you too. :cool:

Airfixpilot.

Spot on. Agree with you absolutely. Time to put this thread to bed.

PercyDragon This thread has served not only to debate the subject, but to keep hundreds of current & former RAF personnel (and countless others) informed on the progress of the campaign to clear Jon & Rick's names. The length of the debate serves to prove the point that there are a number of possible factors involved in the accident, a point which the MoD has yet to grasp. The thread will remain relevant until the end of the campaign.

Of course the decision to "put the thread to bed" rests with Danny & the Admins. We are fortunate to enjoy the support of PPRuNe, and the campaign is very grateful for that support.

Just as everyone is welcome to join the debate and contribute (regardless of their point of view), you equally have the right to leave the debate & stop reading the thread. Personally I think any debate is strengthened by diversity of opinion.

Hi Percy

Afraid you, and the handful who see things your way, are going to lose?

Surely, even you must accept the the AM's are going to lose, perhaps not today, not tomorrow, but someday.

I can tell you - that as an Admin, and a most avid supporter of this campaign, this thread will survive.

Such an arrogant suggestion, after all that been done and people have gone through, is totally reprehensible.

Thanks for the support PPRuNe Pop.

Hi Percy. Long time no post.
I have to agree that it is time to put this thread to bed. As soon as justice is done. After all, over eight years is an absolute disgrace!

Could I ask if you'd be willing to write to your MP and ask if they would sign EDM 829? :D

Surely even you can't be happy with the MoD being unanswerable to Parliament.

Go on........ You know you want to really.

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

Good on Pprune Pop and Brian Dixon. I look forward to seeing how the campaign will be taken forward, and I will look HERE to find out, as I am sure will many others.

In respect of EDM829 that will shortly come to its natural end with the conclusion of the current Parliamentary session.

I guess the next focus of action will be the debate in the House of Lords.

Nice one Pop!

I really wonder if Percy expects to be taken seriously, or if he's just a wind-up artist who flits from forum to forum trying to be provocative.

Heres a quote from his effort on the African forum regarding Ghana:

Errrr.... Check your six for men in white coats matey:D ;)

Interestingly, as Brian points out, this is no longer just a question of Jon and Rick's shabby treatment by those who should know bwtter, but a fundamental question of governmental accountability.

Hoe dare they ignore the findings of the original BOI, the Sherrif, the PAC and the HOL. (oh and us!)

My apologies for the long, and slightly off-topic post below, but it surely must highlight some of the deficiencies currently within the Ministry of Defence.

The arrogance displayed in the subject below is indicative of the current culture, and can only strengthen the case against the Air Marshals, and the incumbent Secretary of State, in their refusal to acknowledge their own mistakes in the Chinook Affair.
In the case below the MoD have so far ignored the wishes, and promises of the Prime Minister, and relevant elected representatives of Parliament.

If this is correct, then surely the powers exhibited by the faceless Mandarins within MoD need curtailing severely, and swiftly, or is “Yes, Minister” still alive and thriving in Whitehall?:( :( :(

telegraph.co.uk
MoD 'fobs off' claims for tax refund on pensions
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 15/08/2002)

The MoD is telling relatives of disabled servicemen and women who were charged tax they should never have paid that they are not entitled to a refund.

The advice apparently ignores promises by ministers that it would all be paid back.

The MoD was bombarded with letters from disabled servicemen and women, or their relatives, asking if they qualified for a refund after The Telegraph revealed that their pensions should have been paid free of tax.

Lewis Moonie, veterans' minister, admitted that thousands of former servicemen or their widows and families were owed millions of pounds in tax that should never have been paid. Tony Blair apologised for the error, promising that all those affected would be repaid.

The vast majority of claimants do not have any of the relevant paperwork and have been forced to accept the MoD's assertions that they did not qualify for a refund or that they or their relative never paid tax in the first place.

However, one Telegraph reader who was told that his father did not pay any tax on his pension still has his father's papers, which clearly show that he did.

Michael Guthrie, of Ledbury, Herefordshire, was one of those who wrote to the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency in Glasgow after Mr Blair's promise that the tax would be repaid.
His father, Geoff, joined the Royal Corps of Signals in the 1920s, serving in India, including a spell on the North-West Frontier, and Burma, where he was part of General William Slim's "forgotten" 14th Army.

After the war, by which time he was in his early 40s, Captain Geoff Guthrie emigrated to Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, before moving to South Africa, where he died in 1982.
Mr Guthrie told the officials that the reason he was asking about a possible refund was that he had found a certificate of tax paid on the pension among his father's papers.

But even so he received a letter back from the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency telling him that no refund was due as his father had never paid any tax on his pension.
The agency, which in its initial letter to Mr Guthrie sought to blame the media for the "misleading" publicity over the affair, insisted that Mr Guthrie's father could not have paid any tax on his pension.

"The pension that he received was a War Disability Pension, paid by the War Pensions Agency and these pensions were always paid non-taxable," the agency wrote.

Major John Perry, the retired officer who uncovered the scandal, said many of those who had written in appeared to have been "fobbed off" with the agency's insistence that pensions paid by the War Pensions Agency were not taxed.

"Mr Guthrie is very lucky in that he had the relevant paperwork to show this is not true. Most of those affected do not have any paperwork and have to take the MoD's word for it," said Major Perry.

"The MoD has been hiding behind confusing jargon which means nothing to most people. The issue is very simple. The law clearly states that anyone discharged because of a disability 'attributable to or aggravated by' their service should not pay tax on their pensions."

The MoD said last night that it was still looking into Mr Guthrie's claims.

An investigation into the whole affair was expected to report by the beginning of November.

This may be relevant:

I know nothing about the magazine, or it's reputation.

If this had been posted previously, my apologies.


no problem, but as it adds nothing new to the thread, and it includes advertising, I have removed the link

Correct me if I'm wrong but...
 

It has been a long time since I read the Accident report on the Mull crash but didn't AP and the BOI have their findings overturned by the 2 Air Officers at the centre of this debacle to come up with the "Gross Negligence" verdict?:confused:

Hi Axel-Flo,
you are indeed correct. The BoI submitted a finding which said "In assessing human failings the evidence is insufficient to be specific." , although it did go on to state that regrettably, Flt Lt Tapper failed in his duty to ensure the safety of the aircraft, crew and passengers. It is important to note that that is not negligence though.

In giving his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee, Mr Wratten said, " Forgive me, it was a perogative that Air Vice Marshal Day and I had to send it [The BoI Report] back to the Board of Inquiry and to draw that to their attention and say, "Come on, you have to be more positive than this.""

It would appear that the original finding was not to the liking of the Air Marshals, so they simply sent it back requesting a finding that fell more in line with their own opinions.

Seems they are doing the same with certain Ministers too!!

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

Since the only court to have found the pilots "guilty" is the court of Wratten and Day, can they be sued for slander or libel or both? I'm no legal expert, but they seem to be publically contravening every other legal decision. Unfortunately, I suspect Hoon is immune if he has kept his comments to "in the House", but let him have both barrels as well if he said it in public!

On another note, can anyone confirm the rumor that all the officers walked out of a dining in night at Odiham when Day got up to speak? Makes a nice story, but don't know if it is true.

The MoD have published the Boeing report on their website here

Ali Barber:

You've never written a report or a confidential, that indentified someone as an idiot?. Should you be sued?

Wrattens and Days finding was an RAF finding, and RAF alone, as far as I know. The pilots were never found negligent in a civil, coroners, or criminal court.

The real issue at stake here, as I see it, is not really about the crash. It's about a public campaigns ability to challenge senior or junior officers descisions.

Just wait for the day, that a GR-7 drops a bomb in the wrong place and some bunch of MPs want him prosecuted, and the RAF says "hands off". That'll be an interesting debate.

Brian,

The BOI were required by their Terms of Reference to " Assess Human Failings". Furthermore, one definition pf Negligence is (in my Dictionary) "omission of duty".

Kilo 52

Read the Lords Select Committee Report epecially the conclusion.

You will then appreciate the legal angle on negligence.

Wratten, Day, Hoon and the small welsh lord (bach) are about the only ones who fail to understand the concept and its application to the accident.

Hi Kilo 52,

Good to hear from you again. I Hope that you are keeping well.

I fully accept your comment regarding the Terms of Reference for the BoI as that is well documented.

However, does your dictionary state the following:
Negligence - "Omission of duty (With absolutely no doubt whatsoever)"? Doubt it.

That was the regulation in place at the time, and that is what the MoD must adhere to.

As you know, that is the main thrust of my argument. From my simplistic approach, through to some of the most eminent minds in the country, we are all in agreement that the MoD has failed to fulfil that requirement.

Therefore the verdict should be removed.

My best, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Hi M.A.,
welcome to the thread.

I'll try to answer your questions as briefly as they have been posed.

"A lot of heat but not much light". Would that be the same as the MoD's "A lot of speculation and not much fact"?

Have I read the report? - Yes.
There are more areas of doubt than your nine suggestions of possible failure. Have you read more than the Government response? I have (Saves you a question next time).

I too would like to know what happened. I lost four good friends.

Hope that helps.

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

Edited to accommodate a user glitch. Unreserved apologies to Mr Purdey for any offence caused. None intended.

It never ceases to amaze me that after all this time people keep plugging into this thread and throwing in ideas, concepts, theories, possibilities, probabilities, hypotheses, simulations etc, etc.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on what happened, whether they are an "expert" or not. However, what this whole campaign can be boiled down to is the "unwarrantable arrogance" of two airships, which condemns two men who cannot defend themselves.

Think abou it, there are only two men on this planet who "know" exactly what happened in the last minutes/seconds of that fateful flight. I said this recently to someone who has very close connections with the old RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety. The response was "that's a cynical statement".

No it is not! To have "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" Day and Wratten must "know" exactly what ocurred. How can they? Arrogance? Too bloody true!

Seem to have missed something here:confused:

Who is M.A. and what did he say?

1.3 is quite right. It is no longer really relevant what happened. The point is that no-one will ever know, and on that basis the finding of negligence is unsafe.

Their airships' dogged refusal to see that they have failed to reach the extremely high (for just this reason) standard of proof shows, in the words of the PAC, unwarrantable arrogance.

Simple really innit?

Ark,

In response to your question:

'MA' is a new (?) user, a Michael Armitage. He posted a query for Brian, contending that the MoD's response to the Select Cttee demolished the notion that there could have been technical failure (I apologise if I've not got the gist of this absolutely correct, but the general thrust is right!).

His posting was followed by one from John Purdey - I have to apologise to Mr Purdey, since I can't recall what he said. The reason for this is that, in the bit of the screen that shows our monikers, 'Michael Armitage' suddenly turned in John Purdey. This meant that it appeared that John Purdey had posted a question (complete with signing himself off with the initials 'MA') and then answered himself. It was most odd, and completely distracted me from the finer points of Mr Purdey's post...

I assume that there was a technical glitch, and that the postings were removed as a result.

Chinook
 

Now that air action over Iraq is increasing in tempo, how does our disgraceful Minister of Defence and his shameful band of cohorts plan to address the problem that those crews are facing? If one of them is unfortunate enough to 'buy the farm' in action, will their dependants have to face the same outrageous anguish as the Chinook crew's families? The state of morale amongst our few remaining GR4 outfits is bad enough - the thought that we would get no support whatsoever if anything goes wrong makes me seriously question why we do it. All very well for Bliar to talk about being there when the shooting starts; will he give downed aircrew any better support than he has given those tasked with that Chinook mission, if the cause is in any doubt?

rhajaramjet,
I'm sure you and your colleagues do what you do out of a sense of pride.

There will be support for you all, if not from the Government, from others who do care what happens to you all.

However, selfishly, I hope it won't come to that as Messrs Blair and Hoon will be busy putting up with me! :D

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

Hi everyone,

whilst I appreciate the following relates to the first simulation, it's worthwhile taking note of both the date of the question and the written reply, and the paragraphs following the list of the three simulations:

QUESTION IN THE HOUSE
27 July 2000

Mr O’Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) if he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by Boeing as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into RAF Chinook ZD 576

(2) If he will provide a detailed description of the simulator used by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency during the Board of Inquiry investigation into RAF Chinook ZD576


(3) If the Boeing simulation undertaken as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook XZ576 was able to determine the precice (a) speed and (b) height of the aircraft prior to the last five seconds before impact.

Mr Spellar: I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the library of the House.

____________________________

WRITTEN REPLY
MoD Headed Paper

D/MIN(AF)/JS/2878K/2879K/2880K/00/Y Dated 31 October 2000

Dear Martin,

I undertook to write (Official Report 27 July 2000, Written Answers column 749 refers) in response to your questions concerning the flight simulations undertaken following the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre.

Three different simulations were used by Boeing to explore the last five seconds of flight, modelling the response of a Chinook to full up collective control inputs, combined with large aft longitudinal stick inputs. There were:

a. A mathematical model of the flight characteristics of a Chinook was hosted in a flight simulator, and a pilot’s control movements were input by moving flying controls. The electronic responses of the simulator to those movements were plotted and related in aircraft attitude. These inputs and responses were used as a baseline for further investigations.

b. Using the Chinook flight simulator mathematical model in a non-real time model, the mathematical equivalent of various combinations of pilots control inputs were computer generated, and fed into the mathematical model. The responses of the model to those inputs were plotted and related to aircraft attitude.

c. A further refinement was to use a mathematical model, known as the B-29 model of tandem rotor flying qualities transient analysis, as it had a greater fidelity to Chinook characteristics than the model used in the flight simulator at the time.

The extensive data from all three simulations was correlated and validated, but it gave no insight into the precise speed and height of Chinook ZD576 prior to the last five seconds before impact. However, an approximation of the height and speed prior to the last five seconds of impact can be made. A report summarising all the data from these simulations was submitted to the Board of Inquiry into the accident.

With regard to the Defence Research Agency (DERA) simulation, their computer based work used a relatively simple mathematical model, from which were obtained estimates of the flight path changes that might be achieved following abrupt pilot control inputs. Engineering data to configure the model were obtained from Chinook operating manuals and open literature sources. Additional information was obtained during a visit to RAF Odiham, and a short visit to the RAF’s Chinook flight simulator at Farnborough. Full details of DERA’s methodology were submitted to the Board of Inquiry.

I hope this helps clarify the position.

Signed – John Spellar MP


The document clearly states that the simulations gave no insight into the precise speed and height of ZD576. Yet during the evidence to the Select Committee, the Air Marshals constantly said that they knew 'for a fact' heights and speeds.


I'm currently reading the documentation relating to the latest simulations so will post something on them soon. However, I doubt it provides facts that conclude that two highly trained pilots were negligent.

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

Brian et al,

From the very earliest days of the inquiry, the two computer simulations were always viewed by the MOD as their trump card. The incontavertable (sp?) evidence that the guys scr@@@d up!

Simply because no other evidence, other than two scraps of rather shaky navigational information, existed.

The Boeing model however, only ever sought to show a possible scenario for the final 2.9secs of flight.

Crucially, it is a MODEL of a possible, not a RECORD of the actual, final seconds. Ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?

Even if the model is accurate, and that can be questioned!What it all boils down to is this: In the final 3 or 4 seconds of flight, the boys were - SURPRISE, SURPRISE, doing everything they possibly could to avoid a catastrophic ground contact!

I would expect nothing less of either of them!

All we want the cretins at the MOD to explain, is how this piece of debatable modelling has allowed them to fabricate a complete scenario to explain "with absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that pilot negligence, and not the malfunctioning of this heap of junk, caused this tragedy.

They even had the audacity to ask Boeing to repeat their modelling in a desperate attempt to PROVE that which it never could. The MOD version!!! Didn´t hear that bit explained did you!

These people are pathetic excuses for senior officers, civil servants, and low life politicians.

This will never go away.