Indeed, Chugalug2 - that's quite some article!

Re. the Glen Ogle accident, presumably the CVR tape still exists? Lynda Henderson must be pretty sure of her facts to make such an accusation - which cannot be left unresolved.

'Clearly showed the pilot saying to the navigator something like: ‘Take this you ******’

This is complete fabrication. I listened to the track and was involved in its transcription. Indeed, Henderson's article is so full of inaccuracies, she should get a job with News International.

PC:
Therein you point up the whole dilemma of the present arrangements. What comes through loud and clear from the whole sorry saga of this thread is that some people in the RAF have been involved in suborning the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations, and thereafter further involved in covering that up to the extent of besmirching the reputations of deceased JO's without proof, honourable Air Marshals notwithstanding. So quite apart from tackling the ongoing inevitable implications that has now for the Airworthiness of ALL UK Military Aircraft , it raises uncomfortable implications of the propriety of those RAF Officers charged with such responsibilities, honourable Air Marshals notwithstanding. In short, who do we believe?
What was on that tape, who saw what from a Chinook cockpit, is incidental to the fact that they are all dead. What we must turn our attention to now is to prevent future avoidable deaths in UK Airworthiness Related Air Accidents or failing that to ensure that such accidents, along with all others, are properly investigated. The Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence have shown themselves incapable of discharging either responsibility properly, let alone effectively. That is why we desperately need a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB, and time is of the essence.
Self Regulation Never works and in Aviation it Kills!

Here's how I see things.

We may never know the FACTS about the Chinook crash, but there are facts, and maybe in time they will be known.

For sure, the MoD were wrong to pin GN on the pilots without the facts being known, but:

Either,

1. The crew were overtaken by some unknown problem and were powerless to prevent the accident.
Therefore your campaign has cleared them of a very unfair slur. You've effectively prevented a miscarriage of justice and are to be roundly congratulated.

or,

2. The pilots actually made a ccok of it, like many pilots before them and actually are guilty of what they were charged with. QED you've actually caused a miscarriage of justice by clearing them.

God only (literally) knows whether it was 1. or 2. above.

Ken out.

Correct 100%, God only knows, not the Air Marshals..................

BEagle:

Well I can testify (if my evidence is called upon again) that her allegations are not true. What a truly awful and nasty thing to say.

Edited to add a quote from the article:

Not every day I find myself (along with many others) being accused of criminally concealing a murder - do I need a lawyer?

First, my heartfelt thanks to Brian for a successful campaign pursued with compassion, dignity and tenacity: well done!

Second, whether Henderson's article contains inaccuracies or not, surely BB cannot simply ignore it? If he doesn't and the press pick it up, let us hope that the other conspirators in this long-running scandal get drawn in and called to account for their misdemeanours: Alcock, Bagnall, Day and Graydon at the very least.

Third, C2 I agreee with you 100% about the need for an independent MAA.

BarbiesBoyfriend:

What a staggeringly inane statement!

There are indeed 'facts'. Precious few, but facts indeed. Such as: No CVR or FDR. No survivors or eyewitnesses. No radio calls, nor radar traces. 80% of the aircraft completely destroyed.

No reliable record whatsoever of the aircraft's flight profile nor serviceability prior to impact.

The fact that the aircraft was not able to satisfy any normal airworthiness program. Due not least to serious problems with the flight control, and engine control systems.

Need we go on!

Although I have no idea of what point you are clumsily trying to make, please rest assured that every single independent review (there have been numerous!) of all available evidence has found insufficient FACTS to determine any cause for this tragic loss of life. But please don't allow them to prevent you from thinking you know better! :ugh:

Of course we know that we have the MoD itself to thank for that very lack of evidence, since they decided in their infinite wisdom not to fit CVR or FDR, after a strong recommendation to do precisely that, after a fatal Chinook crash 8 years earlier.

I have no idea what your interest is in this case, but you're beginning to look like a bit of a 'co@k'

1.3VStall, that'll be a large G&T please!

Just This Once, if a journo is throwing such allegations of murder around, then either she has conclusive proof of such an act - or is, at the very least, likely to be facing a countercharge of libel.

Perhaps an independent review of the CVR tape is needed properly to put this one to bed?

BEagle

I don't think it possible to 'libel' a dead man. Hence why we are here!

God only knows
 

BB
Don't you know God is an inexperienced subordinate of Sir William.

4468 as I posted earlier, the enquiry cleared the pilots of gross negligence, it did not say that they were not to blame for the crash, only that there was insufficient evidence to so do.

BEagle, it may well be libel or such like; at the very least it is dishonest. I am astonished that she has linked these 2 disparate events together - on one hand she is defending those who cannot defend themselves and then attacks 2 others without cause or reason.

Beyond the 2 different legal systems that came together for this inquiry, the coroner, the RAF Board itself, civilian AIB, civilian police & Tornado SMEs I am not sure how much more independent we can get. I also regard my own eyes and ears as independent, but I guess that is for others to judge.

As she is making the allegations perhaps she can offer the evidence; suggest she starts with her first allegation in that the pilot was married!

The point Barbies Boyfriend is trying to make is to add some objectivity to the debate.

It is that very absence of material evidence that indicates the apparently unthinkable conclusion that he identified in option 2 and, to quote a phrase that's been bandied about recently, it is clearly "beyond any reasonable doubt" that this accident was CFIT. There is not a shred, not the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is the only credible explanation.

ab, did you take legal advice from the same source as the AM's? The requirement was that the pilots were Grossly Negligent beyond all doubt, not that there was to be the tiniest shred of evidence, "beyond any reasonable doubt" that this was not CFIT. Even if it were, there is proof, not a tiny shred of evidence, but proof that the HC2 fleet then, including this one, was Grossly Unairworthy at the time, because it was Released To Service into the RAF in that condition.

4468

The 'FACTS' I refer to are simply 'what actually happened'.

ie. the missing factual explanation of what occurred.

Also trying to point out that IF, 2. occurred, justice has not been done.

And if 1. occurred, it has.

That's all.

A person is objective if they are swayed by facts, and not personal feelings or opinions.

Neither you nor BB can therefor be described as 'objective'.

The 'facts' of this case speak for themselves. No determination of cause is possible. So say numerous independent reviews of the available evidence, and of course now, so also says the Ministry of Defence.

Long after we are all dust, the record will show where the available evidence led.

There is total agreement.:)

All you gum bumpers can have whatever 'opinion' you wish. As we all now agree, they simply cannot be supported by the available facts, and so are of little value . :)

And relax. :cool: :)

4468, I meant that the journo has, it would seem, libelled all the members of the Glen Ogle BoI.

Or does she have some evidence that no-one else has seen?

Well put. I suspect there are many here that would agree. Everyone I have spoken to on this subject in the MoD & RAF holds this view. Many feel the GN was uncalled for (something I would agree with - if only for the simple reason that they are deceased), but this not the same as saying - "now we have no idea what happened". This is changing history and the original BOI findings - which still seem to ring true to me.

Most refrain from posting along these lines, I suspect, on the grounds of decency and sympathy for those who have been most affected by this tragedy.

However, some of the opinion and conjuncture here & elsewhere is just getting out of hand. The Tornado slander is potentially outrageous.

I note that some posters have resorted to insulting and derogatory remarks about the posters who hold opinions that differ from their own - not usually a good sign.

I think one needs to understand that their is a colossal difference between Gross Negligence which is culpable and Pilot/Crew Error which is simply human nature. It's also why there was such a burden of proof required for one that was not required for the other.

I don't believe anyone with an actual vested interest in the finding would balk at the possibility of Aircrew Error in this case. However, the length of this very thread attests to the general feeling that Gross Negligence was utterly uncalled for and, demonstrably, in contravention of the regulations at the time.

Airborne.

FWIW, I quite agree.

There's a world of difference between (rightly IMHO) dismissing the GN charge and,

"...an inquiry led by Lord Philip cleared them of responsibility for the crash.......",

which is from todays Sunday Times.

BBBF:

I don't believe it is worth arguing over the interpretation of some second rate hack journalist's interpretation of the Philip Report and what it actually said. I don't believe that it said anywhere that the crew were blameless in the accident - but I did skim some portions. Had it said that I'd be inclined to feel as you do but since it's the interpretation of one whose ilk can publish a picture of a Chinook and caption it an "Army Helicopter" I ignore their ignorance and move on.

Sure is, BEagle! Some 'in your face' allegations being made there - I wonder if the CVR tape will actually surface? Certainly, it's existence has been talked about in quiet corners for a long time. For anyone interested, see both of these - they are startling:

Argyll News: Kintyre Chinook crash issue even more serious – Fox to report to Parliament on Philip Report on Wednesday | For Argyll

Argyll News: 1994 Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared – now the real gross negligence must be identified | For Argyll


As for Wratten and Day? Having seen both in 'action' during my career, it is my opinion that they were nobs then, and they still are! :cool:

Do read the second article in Mr B's post by Lynda Hamilton.
When the gutter press finally get distracted from Murdoch, it should lead to some very interesting articles and law suits.

What good would it do anyone to reopen the Tornado case?

The Inquiry decided it was a momentary error of judgement, probably while avoiding a bird strike, that did not amount to negligence and cleared the deceased crew of blame.
The journo doesn't agree with that. She doesn't understand bird strikes.

What does she want? The Inquiry reopened and the pilot blamed? :confused:
All journo's care about is a story and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.

The crew are both dead.
Let them RIP.

B.

You are kidding, right?

Some very serious allegations have been made; these cannot be allowed to remain unresolved.

It's called justice. Perhaps an alien concept to some?

No BEagle, I am not kidding. I am expressing my opinion.

Serious allegations made by who?
Some journo.

Disagreeing with people without being pompous seems to be an alien concept to you. :rolleyes:

B.

Wear the cap if you will, but actually I was referring to the less-than-dynamic duo....:rolleyes:

So you think some journo making allegations is a good enough reason for a review of the Inquiry's decision to exonerate the Tornado crew.

I don't.

B.

Well, under the well publicised and bizarrely misworded burden of proof the GN charge is clearly unreasonable. But without wishing to be contraversial it is pretty clear also that had the definition been properly worded (ie, beyond reasonable...) then that GN charge would still have been made and would stick to this day unchallenged. In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT. Harsh maybe, but realistic. The fact that the protagonists are deceased should have no bearing on the verdict being called for or uncalled for. There should be no place for sentimentality in delivering verdicts in accidents. That is clearly inappropriate.

That said, I am very happy that the GN charge has been removed in this case, it was inappropriate under the circumstances pertaining and any other verdict under other circumstances is purely hypothetical.

Equally inappropriate and inaccurate are the media reports that say the crew were "exonerated of responsibility" or words to that effect.

[QUOTE=Agaricus bisporus;6577705.....In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT. [/QUOTE]


And how do you know that it WAS CFIT, no-one else KNOWS, and NO ONE really knows what ACTUALLY happened?

Fer fuggsake pal, do you not know about aviaton accident reports? Results are generally accepted under the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".

No report ever claims to know for certain - indeed this whole business revolves around the impossibility of guaranteed proof. Why do some people require 100% proof to exonerate the pilots from GN yet demand the same to disprove the obvious in the other direction? How about a little (100%) continuity in logic too?

What do you suggest happened? Alien intervention? Meteorites? Ouija board? Got 100% proof then?

Heavens above! Get real. Sadly people sometimes fly into cumulo granitus. It happens. Best to recognise it though and not do the ostrich thing, that helps no one.

And lets keep asking the RAF establishment "why" to ensure daft operational taskings like this never happen again.

As Bronx says, what good would it do. Both men are dead. Libel that is.

Anyway, matters are getting a trifle heated and there can be no chance that a 'Tornado' thread will emerge. But while it is still important for people to voice their opinions and concerns on the Chinook disaster, that is bound to happen, but it should not make a path for it to go too far. As I said earlier the suggestion that a topic 'with the same name' should be opened to continue the Chinook debate is NOT going to happen.

It is over and it has to end. After receiving many PM's today it is clear that the regulars are very happy with the result and now want the thread to fade away.

Various
 

..congrats to all the campaigners , good outcome.....

..for the sake of completeness there are a couple of observations I would like to put on record before the thread is closed....

...there is an error in the AAIB report on page 33 , para 5.10 , third line ,

Quote:

---

"bearing of 012°G(015°M(L)"

---

should read "bearing of 012°G(21.5°M(L)" or alternatively "bearing of 012°G(016°M(OS)"............as per the definitions on page 31 of the same report .........a bit academic really.......

......as the local magnetic variation at the Mull was found to be 12.5 degrees West , this changes some of the other bearing information
for example the heading of 35 degrees found on the HP console , less 12.5 , gives 22.5 degrees , very close to the true heading flown in the period immediately after waypoint change as indicated by the GPS data....(22.23Deg.T)........
...so the chinook could have left the Irish coast using the 7.5 degree west variation published for the region.........and discovered that
this was no longer accurate as they approached the Mull......this should have directed them further west away from land........but may have formed a distraction for a time and may have prompted them to yaw to port and starboard in order to check heading info.??.....and
to compare and cross check the GM9 info with the TANS heading display....
......as we know they were flying closer to the Mull than planned due to accumulated errors on the waypoint location and GPS signal.....and this possible distraction may have delayed their awareness of their proximity until too late ........
...this compass difference may never have been noticed on a good VFR day , as the navigation is then done mostly visually with little reference to instruments..

...............I had refrained from mentioning this last point before , as it seemed somewhat unlikely.......but should be considered.........in plotting the locations of waypoints A and B , the co-ordinates appear to have been rounded down , which moved both waypoints to the South and East of the probable intended locations , exacerbating the danger of proximity to higher ground ........
.......all crew ( and probably most of their colleagues) it appears had served in other theatres such as Bosnia and the Gulf ................where their location was East of the Greenwich meridian ............in which case any rounding down of a co-ordinate in those theatres would move a location to the South and West of the true location.........
............In operating from NI , a posting significantly West of Greenwich this habit may have been applied automatically
and resulted in the waypoint moving inshore instead of offshore........

.....as suggested by others.........a combination of events which would each be insignificant when considered in isolation , may have added up to cause the accident.......

rgds Robin Clark....

Agaricus, (Fishead...)
If you can tell us, on what basis you feel so confident that CFIT is the only possibe cause we may have some basis for debate.

Otherwise, if you have no wish to debate, your comments are worthless.

yawn! :=

Sorry it has to end this way folks, but the petty squabbling that is now emerging is degrading the past excellence of this thread and that must stop, so it is now closed.

Agaricus bisporus That is the 'properly worded' standard of proof when aircrew are still alive to give their account of what happened and defend themselves.
Aircrew who survive have all the rights and protections associated with a fair trial and also have the right to appeal against an adverse finding.

Aircrew who die have no such rights.
That is why a higher standard of proof is required before condemning aircrew who are dead and can't defend themselves.

“Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent” seems very clear to me.