Pulse1 - What was your MPs' comment on the HoL report? To me, his reply smacks of another person becoming "Judge and Jury" and missing the point of "burden of proof" which we all (sorry, almost all) agree is the real issue here. Also, did he know the AMs? After the skullduggery that we have seen in the House of late one has to ask! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

H'n'H,

He didn't mention the HoL enquiry. I don't know what his relationship with the AM's is but he did tell me that Bill Wratten led the 50 year BoB Memorial Flight over London and that he was the senior RAF officer in the Gulf war. I knew that because he gets two mentions in Tom Clancy's "Every Man a Tiger" which is mainly about General Chuck Horner who led the USAF contingent.

JW is not my MP. My MP has not yet answered at all. I wrote to JW after his contribution to the Defence debate. It would be good if anyone from Ruislip and Northwood constituency wrote to him. Or anyone else with military aviation credentials.

Pulse 1

As you say, John Wilkinson (Wg Cdr Retd) had a distinguished career as an RAF Pilot and has been an MP for approx 30 years.

I agree with his analysis of the facts except that it WAS possible for the crew to climb to SALT (although NOT significantly above) when they encountered the forecast bad weather.

As far as I am aware the Hon Member for Ruislip & Northwood is the only serving MP with an RAF Aircrew background. He, obviously, is not convinced by your arguments.

Incidentally, I notice that no-one answered the question as to how many crews were available in NI at the time of the accident. Three Pilots were named by the BOI; all Captains. Were all the Pilots on the Detatchment Captains or was there a 3rd crew there because of a crew changeover?

K52,

As a VFR pilot I cannot comment on IFR procedures but, as a scientist, I believe that anyone who thinks it is safe to fly 25 passengers into such a small window (500'?) between SALT and the FORECAST 4 deg isotherm has a highly questionable attitude to flight safety. This seems to apply to you, the AM,s, and most of the SH force. John Wilkinson and Peter Crawford (ex S/C Odiham, among ,many others including possibly the Chinook pilots, say they could not safely climb above SALT. With so many eminent helicopter pilots disagreeing, the least any right minded person could concede is that there must be DOUBT.

I would be interested to know what tolerance one should place on a forecast value. Even if you were in a position to locally measure the isotherm level you would have to state a tolerance based on the equipment used and the number of measurements you made. I would not base my life an a measurement tolerance better than 500' let alone a forecast. As a VFR pilot I only have to think about how many times I am frustrated by cloud base forecasts to know that.

I will leave others more qualified than I to comment on your continuing habit of throwing new angles into this debate, that of the number of captains around.

P1

Absolutely!

The forecast was just that. As an experienced SH pilot frequently in this position, I would base my ability to climb on the well known rule of thumb, surprisingly accurate, of a 2 deg per 1000ft lapse rate.

The surface temperature, from the AAIB report was 9 deg C (not 11 deg C as Wratten purports [that was at Machrihanish]). Any Chinnook 2 Captain willing to climb above 2500ft in these conditions would indeed be negligent. The SALT locally was 2800ft.

Welcome back K52 you rascall. Got your email, and happy your computer tribulations are over. Gloves off, or on? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

My MP, Andrew Robathan says he is broadly in agreement with me. '...the finding of gross negligence is difficult to sustain given that nobody knows what happened to the aircraft, but I am afraid that I almost invariably do not sign EDMs.'

Just bringing the topic back to page 1.

Ark - tell you MP that you require him to sign the EDM. He was elected to take your views to the House, not just pay lip service.

Pulse, Mr Wilkinson must surely admit that there are areas of doubt.

Thank you to everyone for keeping this issue current. I think the Government will eventually have to accept the Lords Report. However, they may use the old play-on-words trick and say that they accept the Report for what it is, without removing the verdict from Jon and Rick's records. We must not allow that to happen.

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

(Edited for spooling erers)

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: Brian Dixon ]</p>

K52. .. .I thought you were more familiar with this case. Yes, there were three pilots mentioned by the BoI. The two deceased, a naval exchange officer,(all qualified as CH47 captains) but also, a navigator.. .. .So, two crews. What's your point? Or are you counting breakfasts again? . .. .Just how many independent reviews of this gross injustice do we have to have.. .. .THE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT EXIST!. .. .Every man and his dog now knows it.. .. .Now a question for you K52: Have you read the House of Lords Select Committee report? I really think you should, and tell us where it is inaccurate.

BD, I have received an e-mailed reply to my letter to Sec.Def; from Air Staff as expected, and complete with two spelling mistakes! . .. .Frankly, it appals me that anyone in Air Staff would send out correspondence with mistakes in it, but I guess it's endemic these days!. .. .It doesn't say anything not already said, the usual platitudes about a "response in due course" etc.

Tandemrotor. .. .I was familiar with the BOI, but not with the Crew strengths of the Detatchment as they did not form part of the BOI.. .. .Your explanation is, however, very interesting.. .. .The BOI seem to have been in no doubt that the Flight Planning for the fatal sortie had been done by Flt Lt T. Just one reference, out of several, will suffice:- para 67c “ as Flt Lt T had carried out the flight planning for the sortie, including calculating the Safety Altitude for each leg, he would have been familiar with the intended route.” The BOI came to their conclusion on the basis of the evidence given to them during their investigation.. .. .At the FAI it appears that Lt K gave evidence that HE had carried out the Flight Planning for the sortie. Certainly the photocopy of the chart left behind showed that the writing of the person who prepared it did NOT correspond with the handwriting of eiher Pilot on the fatal flight. Some have suggested that the copy of the chart left behind was only an illustration and not a definitive statement of their Flight Plan. I would say “why leave a photocopy and not the chart”?. .. .The next question is, if as it appears from the evidence given to the FAI, the other crew did the Flight Planning; why did the RN exchange Pilot do it instead of the Navigator? . .. .The final question is how did the BOI, on the basis of the sworn evidence given to it, reach the conclusion that Flt Lt T had planned the sortie the previous evening?

K52. .. .So you haven't read the House of Lords report then!

Hi Samuel,. .Hope you are keeping well.. .. .I had a letter from the MoD in response to my e-mail to Mr Hoon. No spelling mistakes. The letter states that the MoD is still giving 'careful consideration' to the Lords Report. When they are ready to comment, they will contact Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee.. .. .I have replied thanking them for their letter, and pointed out that the campaign will continue until they respond to Lord J. Their response will decide whether or not the campaign continues or not.. .. .As always, many thanks for your support (and to everyone else too!).. .. .Please keep this as current as you are able.. .Best wishes as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Tandemrotor. .. .I note that the HOL did not call Lt K to clarify as to who actually did the Flight Planning. There is, it seems to me, a major discrepancy between the evidence given to the BOI and that given to the FAI as to who did the Flight Planning.. .. .Equally, there is no mention in the BOI of a 2nd person on the Yacht. The President, in his evidence to the HOL, said there was no need to include his statement as it merely confirmed what Mr Holbrook had said. . .. .As the evidence from Mr Holbrook, used by the BOI in its report, is now refuted by him; it would be interesting to know what the opinion of the other crew member is.

K52. .. .Are you implying you HAVE read the HoL report, or should we still conclude you have not?. .. .Where is it at fault?

K52 . .. .All you are doing is raising doubts. Isn't that the whole point?. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

OldBonaMate. .. .Well said. . .. .Something for John? Wilkinson, the MP for Ruislip to consider as his views also are of doubts and not fact.. .. .This battle will be won even though we will have to wait and not as the MOD hope, go away.

K52,. .. .All the evidence has been assessed, digested, ruminated, considered by the HOL et al. Many of the highest legal minds in England and Scotland agree that the verdict was not sustainable on the evidence and is therefore unjust.. .. .You appear to have let these recent events wash over your head. Just what is your agenda? Why do you still persist in trying to prove that these two pilots were guilty of manslaughter?. .. .What is important now is that the MOD do not try to put themselves above legal reasoning and persist with the unsustainable verdict. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Reply today from my old friend at the MoD, a Mrs Bellchambers.. .. .'This was a tragic accident, and the original investigating BoI found thet the circumstances of the crash involveddetailed technical, legal and aimanship issues. The Report of the HoL Select Committee, like all the other reviews since the accident, is complex and quite properly requires the most careful consideration. We are now in the process of studying and fully assessing it, and will provide a response in due course to Lord Jauncy, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and to the HoL. It would be inappropriate to make any substantive comment until then.'. .. .Keep needling them!. .. .Oh, and K52, I guess I was negligent yesterday when I flew from FRA to EDI on a flight plan prepared by someone else.. .. .The doubts you keep raising merely reinforce our claims. The straws of ever decreasing calibre to which you cling simply add to the doubts that must overturn the finding that, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the pilots were negligent to a gross degree.

I had an interesting chat with an ex-RAF Swift pilot last night. He was of the opinion that pilot error was the only logical conclusion you could come to.. .. .I then explained that there were many ideas on what caused the crash, but the argument that everyone had to consider, was "can we say with 100% certainty that they were negligent?" - to which, of course, he said no. That is the situation that everyone finds themselves and I hope that this logic extends to the MoD's report.. .. .On that note, I received a letter from Air Staff on Friday. I have to hand it to them that they have actually read my letter to them, rather than just sending me a standard one. And no spelling mistakes either!. .. .It goes on for to pages, so I won't bother posting it, but it does cover many aspects of the enquiry. I am pleased that it does say "...like all the other reviews since the accident, (the report) is complex and quite properly requires the most careful consideration". I do hope that this is a positive sign.. .. .Keep up the pressure everyone.

Daifly - that wouldn't be an ex-Swift pilot who flew his Swift FR7 through the trees in Germany and later went on to be top Flight Safety bod would it? Chap with a regal name - and a good guy as well; he also said that he learned about flying from his close encounter with those German trees! So if he could have made an error of judgement rather than being grossly negligent, perhaps so could others?

It has hit Canada. For those that haven't seen it there is a well written article at: . .<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020309/286215.html" target="_blank">http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020309/286215.html</a>. .. .Keep the pressure on.