The keyword in X767's post is know.
You don't know, they don't know, I don't know. :ugh:

You've recently said you are against the verdict, but every time you post it is with a "they flew the helicopter into the ground, get over it" tone.

It may well be the most likely cause, but can I just throw in the words "No doubt whatsoever"?

The verdict as stated is fundamentally not supported by the (lack of) evidence. Even you have admitted that, haven't you?

The airworthiness issue deserves to be addressed, and the appropriate measures taken, but the verdict must be changed.

If this came to a court of law, it would be overturned in a heartbeat - for some reason the powers that be seem to want to drag things out so that will happen:confused:

TN

It can come to court if named individuals or simply the MoD is/are charged with gross negligence and a compensation claim lodged, specifically concerning NEW evidence, evidence which senior military officers are acting as government spinners and continuously moving goal posts by denying legitimacy.

Just get them in court, they have signed off the letters to the press, they have admitted to knowing about the positively dangerous software and there is no evidence of them doing anything whatsoever to deal with the subsequent lack of airworthiness BEFORE the crash. Let's have a legal examination of their actions, we'll see how confident they are when questioned under oath.

The BoI will never be opened up, if these people and their ilk have the final say. However they are not powerful enough to stitch up a civil court of law.

There is no doubt whatsoever that they displayed poor airmanship skills, poor navigation skills and poor CRM.

They were however, not guilty of gross negligence.

Would you care to state who you are and what qualification you have to make that statement. Or do you prefer to hide behind anonymity?

I'm an aviator with over 4000 Hours in 11 different types of RW and I don't think they were grossly negligent at all and I feel that the "Grossly Negligent" sentence should be removed However, we all know that it is the responsibility of all aircrew to ensure that the mission, sortie or task for which they have been authorised is executed in a manner that minimizes the risks and hazards to the aircraft, its occupants, ground crew, other airspace users or general public over which such aircraft are flown. In that very basic fact of airmanship they failed. That failure however, does not make them grossly negligent. Therefore I agree with the campaign committee and feel that the Gross Negligence should be over turned.

Thor: He's a, (very polite), troll...

Vec,

Excuse the red text but in my opinion the suggested changes mean that your post reads more accurately now :ok:

V





The latter part is pretty close to the definition of airworthiness.

Senior officials, both Service and Civilian, had a Duty of Care to ensure an aircraft was provided capable of such execution.

The irrefutable evidence is that they knowingly did not.

The pilots may or may not have made an error, but if they did it is entirely possible it was in trying to deal with a far greater wrong imposed upon them.

Those senior officials should be called to account for their actions.

Close but not close enough.

Airworthiness is the ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown.

Which is not to be confused with Serviceability.

Surely that is what this is about. It is all about peoples opinions. This entire campaign is about the Opinions of those senior officials who made that error of judgement in calling the aircrew guilty of gross negligence.

If (Big If), If tomorrow, the RAF changed their minds and declared that the pilots were not guilty of "Gross Negligence" BUT that the cause of the accident was Pilot error.....would that make you happy?

VEVEVOOATIHOOATTACK

Spot on old bean.

Thor

Yup - but I have always said that on the evidence available mistakes were made by the crew. Remember my "coming home with heather in the wheels " post. An inch or two in either direction and we would not be here now, but it would still have been pilot error. Sorry if I am confusing you again Seldom!

Where aircraft do not have data recording, and for 100 years or so they have not,(FAA not thet Crabs!!) verdicts have been based on experience and what the experts of the day have surmised from what has been available.

I still run with "Pilot error" and that is no big deal.

Thanks Vec, for clarifying.

V

I wasn't confusing airworthiness and servicability - it is MoD who constantly maintain they are one and the same.

The aircrew were not provided with an airworthy aircraft.

MoD has admitted, and the AAIB stated, ZD576 carried both defects and faults; and will not say what they were in the process of doing, or later did, about them.

One of the 5 signatories today was AMSO at the time - perhaps he'd care to explain the policy whereby his organisation cut funding to conduct such investigations.

bast0n:
The experts of the day were conspicuous by their absence from the BoI, and we are only hearing from them directly 15 years after the event. That is why I call for the BoI to be reopened, so that the evidence that was not then heard can now be. This is the one opportunity the RAF has to redeem its good name so besmirched by the malignant machinations of its High Command. Yes of course they could repeat the same exercise all over again. But with the whole world watching? If they were so stupid (and on past form it is of course possible) to do so then that simply adds to the case against them in the then inevitable legal battle. Long after the participants in this saga are gone including all present here, the Royal Air Force will, I hope, still be there. It could well do without the shame and stigma of its own continuing "Dreyfus affair". Oh, and to any whose coats may be of a different hue, a word. Schadenfruede only works if you or yours are not included among the "others" to which it refers. Given the purpleness of the MOD plain that would be most unlikely. This is about far far more than the reputations of two junior Royal Air Force officers, important though that is.

Bast0n

Your political naivete astonishes me. Your certainty is almost evangelical. How on earth can you be satisfied with "pilot error'. Nobody saw what happened and those involved are no longer with us. The whole of this thread is a collection of suppositions, opinions and theories (conspiracy or otherwise), and no one, the two AM's in particular, can be certain of the cause. Therefore there can be only one verdict - cause not positively determined.

X767

You have got me there! I am not being political and have never been political.
Radical, bolshie, opinionated and practical-perhaps! Ask my chums........:)

Evangelical?( Christian theological view emphasizing personal faith and the authority of the Bible ") Gosh! No - I have repeated over and over again that I think that on the evidence available it was pilot error. Evidence collected on aircraft crashes without the benefit of data recording relies on "a collection of suppositions, opinions and theories " collated by experts and mixed in with known facts. You don't have to see the accident to have a point of view.That is how it has always been. If you do not agree then that is fine with me.

Good night. Happy dreams.

David

"Sir,
We understand that in the event of a Conservative administration coming to power it will revisit the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident and consider the negligence finding.
Each one of us has reviewed separately the findings of the Board of Inquiry and reached the same conclusion, namely that basic airmanship failings caused this tragic accident.
If yet another review is to take place then we would welcome an opportunity to brief ministers and discuss in necessary detail why this finding remains unescapable. in particular, it will be explained precisely why it cannot be overturned by recourse to a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which is revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts."

The letter is signed by Sir Michael Graydon, SIr Richard Johns,Sir Peter Squire,Sir Glenn Torpy and Sir Michael Alcock.

I was a President of two RAF Boards of Inquiry, in which both of my judgements were upheld by authority.

I am known to one or two of the above Air Marshals, individually and collectively, and I believe that their comments are challengeable from various viewpoints. In my view, it is sad to see that those who were then responsible for making judgemental views, and who are now retired, are seemingly unable to offer incisive views, other than to close ranks and protect arse.

Bast0n

Evangelical - also means "firmly believing in and actively promoting a cause".

In your case that cause is to promulgate that it was pilot error - with no knowledge of the true circumstances.

Sleep Well

X767

Oh ! and well put Jindabyne !!

Likewise.
Many of us can quote the "there but for the grace of God" near accident in which we were involved, but we are still alive and can explain our actions (or try to defend them).
This is denied to the crew of the Chinook.
The unbelievable arrogance of these ancient aviators leaves me gasping, unless of course there is an agenda so damning that it's worth selling your soul to the devil now.

Extract from a Telegraph article earlier this month which I had missed.

X767

Yup,again. I feel that Pilot error, a minor sin with occasionally grave consequences, is a far far better outcome than "Gross negligence", and I think it is probably obtainable from those on high who appear to have no reverse gear.

Thats all, D.

PS My 6127 is relevant as to the evidence gathering.

AA - I'd suggest Bast0n is quite the opposite. This thread, and to a certain degree the campaign as a whole, absolutely require contributors with a contrary viewpoint in order to survive.

Without that, we're either arguing against a brick wall, or just agreeing with ourselves all the time - that's not enough to keep things going.

Bast0n - I still think you're wrong :}

There just isn't enough evidence of pilot error, and enough evidence of problems with the aircraft in question and the type as a whole for CNPD to be the only verdict that a rational person could come to unless there was a hidden agenda.

It's only my opinion, but I now believe that a cover-up is the only scenario that fits the available evidence.

TN

After they were seen at low level, I suppose they could have pulled up above MSA. Then the FADEC threw a wobbler and caused them to descend onto the Mull.

Is that it?

Might be. Probably not. No one knows.

Question!
 

As no emergency calls were made before impact, how many FADEC's threw a wobbly at the same time/in rapid succession?

AA

OOOH! I missed that one!

AA - I could send you a picture of me sitting on a staddle stone in my garden to confirm you worst fears! (In IMC of course) David.

I genuinely am not trying to rock the boat here, but rather to put a practical aviators point of view had I been sitting on the BOI and looking at the evidence from take off to impact. Evidence and probabilities all provided by pre data recording aircraft and eyewitnesses. I just don't think that "Not Proven" would have come out of that BOI - ignore all the political ramifications if you can, as I do, as I do not think that they had much to do with that actual flight.

I am also convinced that "Gross negligence would have not even occurred to me.

David, the Happy Troll.

There was a time when I think many would have accepted any 'lesser' verdict, just to remove the stigma of 'gross negligence'. Such a stance would have given Their Airships a way out - with only minimal loss of face.

Unfortunately, it is coming to light that not only did Day and Wratten get it wrong but, ever since, there has been a 'pighead' (collective noun) of lemming-like Air Marshalls who have not been prepared to accept that two of their number made an error. In doing, they have colluded so as to maintain the abhorrent level of blame on the unfortunate pilots despite mountains of doubt.

That, as leaders in whom Her Majesty has placed 'especial trust', is absolutely unforgiveable and they have forfeited the opportunity for an easy escape. In the minds of many, these Sirs, Lords and Air Marshalls have no honour or decency and they are a disgrace to the uniform they once wore. If it were up to me, I would be happy to see their heads on a pole (proverbially) - preferably lining the Embankment, outside Lemming Main Building.

It is not up to me of course but, judging by the pigheads' letter in the DT yesterday, I suspect that they are already squirming - which will only intensify in court. Bring it on - I have no sympathy for them.:E

flipster

Agreed !

Apposite letter in todays Telegraph.

Sir,

"Pilot Error" is a pejorative phrase. It conjures up a picture of an aircraft operating normally until pilots blunder. In fact, pilots are the last link in the chain of events, which may originate from design, maintenance or organisational weaknesses. Usually pilots act to salvage the situation and all is well, but sometimes the outcome is an accident.
If we choose to believe Boscombe Down test pilots, rather than Whitehall - oriented Air Marshals, the Chinook was a seriously flawed aircraft. The criterion for pronouncing negligence by the deceased pilots has not been met.

Signed by Huw Baumgartner

For a little levity tonight, since Flipster has picked up on my suggestion, should we rename MOD (RAF) as 'RAF Lemming'?

Gents

Help me out here, please.

Either;

1.They continued VFR into IMC which sadly led them to the Mull.

2.They had climbed to MSA and were downed by FADEC (or other airworthiness) issues, and despite putting out no calls or being seen on radar they then descended and crashed onto the Mull.

Question:

If 1. above is correct, are they guilty of the 'gross negligence' charge?

BarbiesBoyfriend.
I'm not sure if you're taking the proverbial, have failed to read any of this thread, or are just plain thick. I discount the last option on the basis fhat you do have some hands on time (nearly 10000?).As the subject matter is quite serious I'll assume that you are serious, so that leaves me with only the second option. Your last post displays a singular lack of understanding of the details of this accident so that seems to be the logical choice. However, and this is important, I just don't know, and cannot,without any doubt whatsoever prove that you have not read this thread fully and diligently, (nor that you are not taking the p*ss , nor that you may be thick).
Do you get the drift?:ok:

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/l...rabs_MOD-1.jpgGood morning all. I know this is not a thread for much much humour but as I have at last managed to get out of bed - broken ribs on the ice -and AA has said that I must be a Troll I thought I would show you the senior RAF officers who are being so incredibly stupid at work on the MOD Troll chair!

Have a super weekend..............:ok:

NEW! 'Name the one that has fallen off' competition:)

BB: Your hypothesis:
They may be. They may not. That would depend entirely on the precise circumstances.

What's your opinion of what was occurring in the cockpit of ZD576 at the time in question?

Of course we have to deal in 'matters of opinion', as we cannot deal in 'matters of fact'.

bast0n, so sorry to hear of your mishap with the icy conditions. I hope that remedial repair work is effected quickly and successfully in accordance with the Regulations. So much for my feeble attempt at humour. As to yours, a fish head or two dotted amongst the crabs would indeed have been a witty take on a serious business. As it was you chose Schadenfreude. I did warn about that! :=
The front line may well be manned by retired Air Marshals of various luminosities. Behind them, uncomfortable with their part in a scandal that pre-dated the Mull tragedy but directly linked to it, may be those of a more piscine persuasion. We shall, without doubt, see in due course.

Chugaz

Fish heads added to avoid attacks by that chap Shadywhotsit..............:ok:

Well done bast0n. Now that's funny! :D I suppose you haven't any pongo related contents in your freezer to add to the montage? No? Well never mind, the point has been made nonetheless. Of course I might have suggested that you paint your toadstool purple, but that might well infringe planning regulations and upset Mrs b so further modifications would merely gild the lily and honour is satisfied, on my part at least. I will instruct my seconds to withdraw wie and trust that they have not caused you too much inconvenience.

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/l...rabs_MOD-2.jpg

Chugaz,

Well, to be fair to all I have managed to find a small pile of anthracite located within the MOD that the Pongos have painted white to avoid standing out too much against a light and dark blue background..............:ok:

Chinook
 

Thor Nogson. Your 6132 ..... "This thread, and to a certain degree the campaign as a whole, absolutely require contributors with a contrary viewpoint in order to survive."
Well, at least that was honest. But many Pruners did not wish to play the game because their opinions were ignored, or the authors were insulted. JP

Ah memories, memories. You try telling the young of today about whitewashing coal heaps and do they believe you? Now that we have established this inter service rapport, bast0n, might we go further and agree that the only acceptable finding, given what is now known and perhaps more importantly what we do not know and never will, is one of "CNPD"? While we have no reason to suppose that the pilots did not conduct themselves with professionalism throughout this flight we now know that those charged with supplying them with an airworthy aircraft failed totally in that duty. The only reason that the cause of this accident cannot be ascribed to that total failure is that we do not know positively that it was. On the basis of probability it was IMHO a more probable cause and it would be inequitable to blame the pilots in any way while not blaming those who failed so shockingly in their duty. That is why "Pilot Error" is not acceptable to me. Perhaps you might, upon reconsideration, agree?

Tandem.

'What's my opinion?' Well, firstly it IS only an opinion and worth no more than anybody elses, maybe less than some on here that have Chinook or rotary time, which I have zero of.

I think they pressed on in marginal VMC and realised where they were a little too late.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong and I'm certainly not stating that that is what happened.

What I was driving at is this: Since, even if what I think took place, actually took place (and I accept we'll never know for sure) would that be enough to justify the very strong 'gross negligence' charge?

After all, plenty of other pilots have had various versions of the same accident and I'm sure that they were not all branded 'grossly negligent'.

That sounds awfully like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to me... :rolleyes: