I agree Uncle Peter. An excellent debate.. .. .My congratulations to Mr Davis for securing the debate, and my thanks to everyone who gave up their time and contributed.. .. .Interesting that there will be another Boeing simulation. I trust the findings (and parameters of the request) will be made public and will be considered 'new information'.. .. .I'll post a link to the Hansard once it is available.. .. .I will remind the MoD that all the time you spend in deliberation - I will spend campaigning. Do the right and honourable thing and restore the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook; and do it now!. .. .Regards to all, as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

I did not see the debate myself but, from reading the last few Posts, it sounds a bit more promising. . .. .I'm simply amazed at how many people, nay, a whole Department, appear to have backed themselves into a corner over this one. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Hopefully, we will see justice prevail and have the original findings of the real BOI reinstated in the very near future. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

It went very well. I am very pleased indeed. Soon alarm bells will start ringing in No.10, and the pressure on MoD will increase to see sense.

link to hansard:. .<a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020319/debindx/20319-x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm020319/debindx/20319-x.htm</a>. .. .mr keys comments alarmed me particularly.

Despite the very good speeches saying that a reversal would not impugn the integrity of Wratten and Day - it would indicate they made an error of judgment - and there's nothing wrong to admit this, I doubt the Government having backed itself into a corner will be willing to do this at such a sensitive time. . .Cynically, therefore, one hopes that Boeing will come up with test results which indicate that there must (or even 'may') have been electro-mechanical malfunction. This will give the administration the lifeline it needs of 'new evidence'. . .I am sure that representations to MPs make a difference. If you consider how little serious post they probably get, they will pay attention to a reasonably well argued letter. My fax on Saturday got a response in 5 minutes!. .I contacted by fax or e-mail my MP, my parents' MP, and the MP for a constituency I lived in 3 years ago.. .Every little helps.. .The pressure is important and I will now e-mail all of them to further push the matter.. .. .(Spell Edit). . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 12:53: Message edited by: expressman ]</small>

I find it hard to fathom why a new simulation is being called for. It is either a delaying tactic or it is hoped it will generate new evidence. If the latter, and such new evidence gives no further clue as to why the aircraft crashed, then it takes the debate no further on. If, however, the simulation produces a possible failure mode, one has then to ask why the MOD and Boeing were unable to discover this years ago - again it doesn't leave them in the best of light. Besides, as a former simulator engineer I know how doubtful it is that one can arrive at any meaningful conclusions from a simulation of this ilk (as I understand it) - it is hard enough ironing out the bugs in the simulation let alone looking at possible unknown failure modes in the electronics. Having said all that, I do not know the full details of the proposal so stand to be corrected if I have jumped to the wrong conclusions about how and why the simulation is to be conducted.

Up until now, Boeing have been exonerated from blame as the BoA laid the blame on the pilots, therefore no further investigations into the aircraft were required. By clearing the pilots of blame for the crash it now raises serious questions as to the airworthiness of the Chinook which Boeing must answer quickly. If there is a fault with the aircraft then solutions must be found before anymore loss of life or injuries are caused.

Big Tudor - Good point. . .. .Has there not been previous talk of this whole farce being a "cover-up" for several groups? Maybe Boeing for example? Or the MoD for accepting the aircraft even with the concerns from Boscombe Down? Even for the two AMs? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .Have Boeing AND the MoD not got highly vested interests in this case? We all know that statistics [read "data"] can tell you anything you want. Yet, they are the ones carrying out this further "investigation". This does not bode well! Sounds like a "Zimbabwean Election" to me!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .It is not often that I sympathise with Politicians. In this case, they seem to be the Mushrooms - and we all know what they are fed on!. .. .Guess we must watch this space! H 'n' H

If the Chinook is now (finally) under scrutiny, perhaps the MoD could make public the Boscombe Down Report on its assessment of the Mk2, and the Textron White Paper to the MoD in which Textron answers Boscombe's criticisms of FADEC.. .. .Don't hold your breath though.. .. .I've said it hundreds of times, but thank you to everyone for their continued support. . .. .I can only hope that the MoD respond soon, despite the intimation by the Secretary of State that they would take the full six months. Wasn't it good of him to be there for the start and conclusion of the debate. Wonder where he went during the middle of it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .Regards all. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Uncle Peter . .. .I also found the comments of Robert Keys disturbing but helpful to the cause. What is interesting is if so much pressure was put on individuals to leave well alone, how much pressure is being put on Hoon and Co?. .. .I missed the live debate but have read the Hansard Report and it does do credit to the MPs concerned. the satndard of debate was high as well as the, often commented upon, cross party support for the pilots.. .. .Those few who have any doubt should read the Hansard report. It makes for good reading

Uncle Peter. .. .Thanks for posting the Hansard reference, very interesting. I also found Robert Key's comments quite troubling. . .Lewis Moonie's comments, as Parl. Under Sec. of State, seemed to indicate a complete lack of understanding of the burden of proof required for a finding of gross negligence, to quote:. ."the essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilot flew a serviceable a/c at speed and at a low level into cloud covered high ground" . .Anyone else find this a bit of an own goal on the MoD's part?

64K$Q:. .. .If the verdict was anything other than 'Gross Negligence', could the relatives of the deceased seek compensation from HMG rather than from the estates of those held to blame?. .. .A cynic might say that the whole reason that Buff and his ilk are reluctant to amend the AMs' findings is that the MoD might then be liable for very substantial damages. Without prejudice, could anyone confirm or deny this?

Chippy: Moonie is just reading from a very worn piece of paper, long since amended by others.. .. .Beags: I don't think there is a compensation issue as I believe that all payments due were made. However, I'm not 100% sure, and would be happy to be corrected. With regard Jon and Rick, both fathers have said that they would not seek compensation with regard the negligence slur. For them, it is a matter of honour. Yet another honourable action from two honourable men.. .. .The report of a further simulation is still bothering me, and I can't quite put my finger on why.. .The new simulation will take into account the function of FADEC, but will it be programmed with the version of FADEC that was fitted to ZD576 (complete with reported problems), or the latest version currently being used?. .. .Also, the simulation used at the time of the investigation did not have a FADEC imput at all. So even before the Air Marshals relied upon the result of the simulation, it was missing a vital element of the overall equation. Therefore another large part of their evidence is undermined.. .. .Am I missing something here? I genuinely can't get my head around this, but something really is concerning me over this and I don't know what. Please feel free to tell me I'm going mad.. .. .I'll shut up now before someone carts me off.. .Best wishes, as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Beagle. .. .Spot on. Having re read Hansard and especially the disclosures of Robert Key one gets the feeling that there negligence in this matter but that the pilots were not the guilty party.. .. .If you haven't read Robert Key's speech do so and and ask the question "Does this speech suggest the negligent parties? It certainly seems to explain the cover up and the attempts to persuade people not to pursue the matter.

Beags - sorry mate, haven't been on this one for a while, so missed your post.. .. .No, this chap isn't he. However, if you find the right people you'll discover that flying down the firebreaks in Germany was a particularly popular thing to do in the Swift fleet!! I think 2 miles was the record! I'll ask him though, he might know of it.. .. .Also, he was recounting the story of a guy who used to fly his Swift at low level through cornfields, just burning the ears of the corn with his jetpipe.. .. .The bad day was when the farmer had "parked" a trailer in the corn.... .. .Reminded me of the Navy Historic Flight chap who found that one tree in the field with the Firefly.. .. .-------------------------------------------------. .. .I've only just had a chance to read Hansard too for the debate, which I seem to have missed at the time. A shame.. .. .It's good to read such structured and, generally, well researched debate in the HoC, which seems to be sadly lacking in the higher echelons of the main parties. It is refreshing to see cross party support for both views too.. .. .The one thing that strikes me the most is that the "anti-HoL" camp are trying to prove the crews guilt, whereas the rest of us are just trying to prove, (as if we need to!), that there is not a balance of probabilities to be argued in this case.. .. .If that were the way then the debate will just go on for ever and ever! The debate is so clear:. .. .Q) Is there 100% hard fact, proof, that the pilots were negligent? I.e. FDRs, CVRs, Eyewitnesses from the Aircraft?. .. .A) No.. .. .It's a pity that this section of the debate, as David Davis tried to get across, seems to get lost in the longer arguments that the "anti-HoL" lobby choose to voice.. .. .---------------------------------------------. .. .Nothing to do this weekend? Then spend 10 minutes writing to your MP and the MoD.. .. .Thanks!

Brian - try putting your finger on this: you're the MD of a large corporation - your primary job is to run the company to maximise the profits for the shareholders. That way you get to stay in the job and collect your massive annual salary.. .. .Now one of your customers comes along and asks you to do a test that will prove that a fault in a major component on one of your products can produce fatal results. You think about it for a while, consult the company lawyers, and quickly realise that if you prove that it can happen, then your company is very likely to face $multi-billion in lawsuits from the families of those killed. It would be tantamount to commercial suicide. In America silly money is awarded against big companies - it's the 'they can afford it' culture that seems to affect juries when they step into this kind of case (witness American Tobacco, et al).. .. .So what are you going to do?. .. .Would you spend a huge amount of time and effort on the project?. .. .Would you employ a safebreaker as a security guard in a bank?

Daifly - it was a Sea Fury, not a Firefly!. .. .If the Boeing simulation farce goes ahead, does anyone think that it would really be conducted by disinterested parties? Perhaps Buff and his cronies think that if the simulation shows up a problem, then they can attribute blame Boeing or Textron Lycoming and evade having to pay miliions of pounds in compensation - whereas if no fault emerges they will consider this as supporting evidence to their view of gross negligence...... .. .The longer this goes on, the more poo is revealed publicly such as that reported by Key. Parliamentary pressure to release documents will increase; will Buff's '6 months' push everything beyond the Summer Recess? That doesn't matter - Brian and his campaign will NOT go away until a just result is out.. .. .When this is all over, it'd make a good movie - all the right ingredients are there: a disaster involving intelligence specialists, government cover ups, gross injustices...and a sustained campaign for justice....

Don't forget Robert Key is a Salisbury man, has Boscombe in his parliamentary patch, and as a past Conservative defence front bencher IIRC has very much the military in his heart. His sense of smell has been unaffected by a life in politics.

Still ploughing througf the transcript and formulating a reply.. .. .Beags You are quite right, and Lady Hermon alluded to the financial aspect in her speach.. .. .I remember back in about 1992, when the MOD lost its immunity, that a memo was issued at Yeovilton, pointing out that in future, we pilots would carry the can and pay the damages for the consequences of any accidents. Would we like to consider insuring ourselves accordingly. The answer was that they might find it difficult to persuade us to carry pax at all, and they came back with the answer that they had got it wrong, and liability would only result if we were guilty of 'gross negligence'.... so that's alright then, isn't it? Next major accident, and guess what.. .. .As it turned out, I believe the families were compensated by the MOD, but the Air Marshalls wouldn't have known that was going to happen when they were formulating the stitch-up.. .. .Brian, regarding the simulation, I'm with you. A sneaking uneasiness, which I am sure will crystalise soon. Meanwhile FJJP's post is as close as I can get.

IMHO, the whole issue of a further "simulation" is a complete waste of time and I believe it is simply an effort by the MoD/Govt to muddy the waters. Basically, we must be aware of the limitations of what they are attempting to do. It is the MoD trying to appear “rigorous” in its’ assessment of the case when it simply does not have the DATA to support such an assessment. In scientific terms, the whole thing is based on “fairy tales”, with so called Data being based on what people thought may be happening at the time; possibly that altitude, possibly that airspeed, possibly that Nr, possibly that AoB, possibly that AUW, possibly that OAT, …... Really, need I go on?. .. .It matters not one iota what software standard the FADEC is, or anything else, for that matter is in the simulation. The simple fact is, that to drive a simulator to accurately reconstruct events, you need algorithms which accurately represent the aircraft characteristics and then the accurate DATA to feed into those algorithms so the simulator can respond accordingly. We must give Boeing/MoD the benefit of the doubt as to the validity of the algorithms used. However, we all know that the aircraft was not fitted with a FDR or a CVR. So where is all this supposed Data coming from? Yep, “Common you Fairies!”, lets dream up some numbers to plug in. Now, just how scientific is that? It will be down to Boeing/MoD doing what they THINK happened on the day. The truth, as we all know, is no-one apart from the deceased (RIP) actually know what happened. Indeed, I believe that, towards the end, even they did not know what was actually happening. If they had, aside from a mega-deathwish theory, they would not have flown into the side of the Mull.. .. .So what can the so-called “simulation” achieve? At best, all they can do is to fly likely profiles under likely conditions and thrown in some possible malfunctions. A tad un-scientific if you ask me! Remember a year or so ago when “Horizon” (I believe) on UK TV went through some civil air crashes? There, actual data from the FDR was fed into the simulator, second by second, in real time, along with the CVR audio. Eerily, Boeing were able to “drive” their simulator using this real-time Data, recorded by the FDR, to drive the aircraft round the virtual sky exactly as the actual aircraft had done on the run-up to the crashes - right up to the moment the FDR stopped recording. I think what the MoD is hoping to do is convince us all that they have recreated the actual flight profile in the same way - but they can’t. Quite simply, they do not have the data to do it. No-one has – unless you believe in Fairies that is.. .. .Now, knowing the MoD and Government, that last point is probably not too far off the mark! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />

Thanks H&H, that has crystalised the nagging thoughts nicely.. .. .Add to your excellent post that their lordships were examining the finding in light of the evidence that was available at the time, making any new simulation irrelevant.. .. .The only other plausible reason I can come up with is a chance for the MoD to say that the original simulation was flawed, that Wratten and Day, in good faith, placed too much reliance upon it, and accept their lordships' exoneration with no damaging loss of face to their airships. Day will forget his promise to resign and everything in the garden will be lovely! Except that he'll still be in charge of men and women whose boots contain more 'moral courage' than Days entire wardrobe of fine uniformery.

I found this near the bottom of the page!!. .. .Some mistake surely <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

Indeed! And why not add that the EDM is now up to 80 signatures.

My MP wrote to me enclosing the reply he received from the Armed Forces Minister:. .. ."MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. .MAIN BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB. .Telephone 020 7218 6666 (Direct Dialling). .020 7218 9000 (Switchboard) . .. .D/Min(AF)/Al 1445/02 & 1 372/021Y. .. .Thank you for your letters of 7 March to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State enclosing one from your constituent about the findings of the recently published House of Lords Select Committee report on the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.. .. .This was indeed a most tragic accident, and as the original investigating Board of Inquiry (BOl) found, and all the various reviews since have confirmed, the circumstances of the crash were complex. The determination of Gross Negligence by the BOl Reviewing Officers was founded on airmanship and duty of care issues, allied to weather, serviceability and technical factors. The Air Marshals’ professional determination that the high standard of proof required to sustain a Gross Negligence finding, could be and had be met, remains central to this case.. .. .The issues arising from their Lordships’ report quite properly require the most careful and detailed consideration. We are, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House on 6 February 2002 (Official Report, column 856) studying the report and will give a full and proper response in due course. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment until then.. .. .The Rt Hon Adam Ingram JP MP"

Back to the top

The Chinook Accident
 

Gentlemen,
There has been a great deal of Politics on this board about this Chinook Accident on the West Coast of Scotland. But perhaps those unfortunate People who lost their lives and their families are entitled to some sort of reply, and YES a great deal of Compensation-- from whoever is responsible !!!
Who tasked this Aircraft-- ( even worse Helicopter) to fly so many security experts in the same Helicopter (not even fixed wing)??
It was clearly known by the operator MOD and the assigned crew that some deficiencies existed with on board software systems, related to engine performance and possibly Navigation.- and yet it was tasked--
The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight. Below off route Radar coverage, and possibly out of communication with even a military unit, for some if not most of the en-route phase.
Then why not choose a longer en-route phase via Airways and within Radar and communication cover for this type of flight, also at a LEVEL which ensured irrespective of weather or Terrain a safe profile.
What happened to the Emergency RT calls that all was not well, have we or anyone outside MOD seen chapter and verse on this accident. ?? Did it carry Black box Recorders ?? Will it happen again??
I live near to RAF Odiham and over a number of years have observed the Flying style of Civil Helicopters and their Military counterparts over the area en-route to H3 at Bagshot, Now tell me Military guys why you need to fly at significantly lower levels over Residential and local high ground areas than the minimum levels legally permitted for civil Helicopter flying. You are not at all times on operational sorties but frequently on Comms. flights Joining an enroute Heli Lane (H3). You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinnok accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence.
But what is almost certain is that the House of Lords are not Aviation Experts- but have nevertheless in their inimitable style deliberated. They do aviation no favours in this respect.
Let us all see the facts - let us be assured that lessons will be learned for the future-- certainly the Victims families as innocent Passengers are entitled to know much more of the circumstances surrounding this accident. - in my view they are entitled to proper compensation, proper accountability. The rush to overturn the MOD findings appears to have forgotten this aspect.
I submit my views , which are my opinion and which will inevitably be contested in many circles, but no more and no less than the deliberations recently exercised on this board or within the House of Lords recently.

Mikeran

I'm not sure of the exact point(s) you are making but you are right about politics.

Those pushing the politics approach want to connfuse the issue with the simple legal matter of gross negligence.

The Lords and others have argued that there was no evidence in law to prove negligence. End of story. Seems simple enough,especially when you read the report of the select committee and the recent debate in the commons.

mikeran

Always nice to see new interest in this matter. May I suggest you go to the archive section and read All that has been said about it before posting again. Most of your questions have been answered.

With respect to why the aircraft did not fly airways, you may be surprised to learn that military helicopter pilots do not hold the required procedural instrument ratings to do this. Furthermore, the icing clearance of the Chinook Mk2 prohibited flight in IMC below +4 degrees C.

The point made above is the crux of the matter. Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.

ArkRoyal, well said. The quote I have taken from your post is probably the best sentence I have seen on these many pages. It sums up the whole point of this campaign - one that so many have hitherto missed.

May I suggest that everyone use it at the bottom of all posts.

Mr Arrse

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

Like Wratten and Day and a few politicians your assumption that the pilots must have flown into the hill is simply that, an assumption, that has not nor will be proved.

In the same way there are assumptions made that the aircraft developed a defect that has not been traced. If you read the Commons debate you will see that a US Army Chinook barrel rolled in 1997 . When stripped down fault a few days later no fault was found. We also were reminded of the FADEC problems as well as the problem of the aircraft suffering in flight jams at or shortly after a change of direction.

I also recall Robert Key in the same debate tell us about the refusal of the Boscombe Downs pilots to fly that type of Chinook.

All of this suggest there might have been mechanical failure. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove that point.

Now if you had put a case for mechanical failure at least the history suggests that it might have been the cause. However, we don't know because nobody was able to find out the cause. We also know the pilots were worried about the aircraft . These are facts but still do not prove cause.

On the other hand there is no, repeat no evidence, that the crew were intent on flying into the hill or negligent in any way. As the Lords Select Committee states the finding of gross negligence, not by the original inquiry but by the two air marshals was based on hypotheses and assumptions but not on fact.

arsse,

If you really have studied all that's been placed on this and the previous forum, you will know that none of us has said that negligence was definitely not the cause of this tragedy.

As soon as you use words such as 'probably' and 'likely' you simply reinforce the case for overturning this verdict.

The criterea of 'no doubt whatsoever' was not thought up by we campaigners to give the MOD a hard time. It was quite rightly enshrined in the RAF's own rules to protect dead men from the slings and arrows that the living could (for whatever reason or agenda) aim their way whilst they had no ability to defend themselves. That is why the burden of proof is, and has to be, so high.

PprunePop, thankyou. But I must admit to paraphrasing the summing up of the report of the Public Accounts Commitee last year.

Now, pop, can I have the fish back in the message icons?

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

Mr Arrse

As Ark Royal and countless others have stated the matter is all about proof of cause.

There is no proof that Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were negligent. The balance of evidence suggests that if one had to ascribe blame that mechanical failure is the more likely culprit than pilot error. Read the recent reports again and you will see what I mean.

A finding of pilot error in this case does not require great courage. Rather it suggests the opposite. Its attraction is that it diverts attention from the real issues and if one were fearing heavy claims claims for negligence it puts a handy intervening cause into the equation.

I think the pursing of hypotheses, asumptions and specualtions about what the the two pilots might have done or not have done is a slight to their memory and to the families.

There is no evidence to support such comments.

e-mail sent on 19 Feb:

"Dear Mr Hoon,

Can you tell me when the MOD are going to re-open the BOI to reverse the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls, in view of the Lords Select Committee findings that there is no case to answer for the finding of gross negligence against the 2 pilots?

Yours sincerely,"

Reply received 03 Apr:

"Thank you for your e-mail of 19 February to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As is usual in such cicumstances your message has been passed to this branch for attention as we have responsibility for this matter.

No doubt your e-mail was prompted by the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee Report about the accident. We are currently studying and fully assessing the Report and will provide a response to Lord Jauncey, the Chairman of the Select Committee in due course. It would be inappropriate to make substantive comment about the Report before then.
Yours sincerely
Nan Bellchambers"

Oh how slowly does grind the wheels of Whitehall...
:rolleyes:

Well - at least Easter has passed by without them trying to slip something out on the sly....:D

'as is usual in such circumstances'?

You mean that there have been other such cases Bellchambers??

Hi all,
just thought I'd point out (as if I needed to!) that two months has now passed since their Lordships Report was published. The MoD has repeatedly stated that it is carefully reviewing the Report before replying to Lord Jauncey. Taking into account weekends and Public Holidays, I would estimate that the Report is being read at a pace of one page a day! How long will it take them to read the report from Boeing following the proposed new simulation I wonder?

Only four months left MoD. May I respectfully suggest you read a little quicker. ;)

As for the new posters on this thread - welcome one and all. Just to pick up one one or two of the re-visited issues:
"The crew presumably decided on the flight profile? To fly direct / Off route, almost certainly below the minimum safe level for a critical portion of the flight." - Assumption

"You should perhaps in this accident case accept that your fellow Officers have in reaching their conclusions over this Chinook accident , not had an easy task- to reach their conclusion Pilot Negligence." - I agree. Not an easy task. The conclusion was based on speculation, not fact though.

"Balance and probability" - Without wishing to be rude, I'm not interested in either of those words. I am dealing with the words Gross and Negligence. Both require an absolute in order for them to be used. The requirement was not met and the rule relating to their use was abused.

That is what the past seven years has been about.

Great quote too Ark! I think I'll stick to my quote though, or I'll have John sending me e-mails :p

Thanks, as always, to everyone for their continued support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

I've been re-reading the David Davis debate and have just noticed the following quote from Minister Hoon.

"I am prepared to make evidence available for independent analysis."

I thought that was what their Lordships had just done.

EDS Scion (an independent company) looked at FADEC and reported hundreds of errors in 20% of the software. What has happened aoout their report? Very little. Why should we believe the Government this time?

It is a clear case of there being no evidence to support the verdict. Surely Mr Blair and Mr Hoon, both with a legal background, can see this. Why then are they so scared of the MoD?? Who is in charge - MoD or Ministers?

Perhaps we should all drop Mr Hoon a line to ask him to apply his legal training and make a decision soon. He could also tell us who is in charge.

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

In light of the above (!) this looks hopeful...

Chinook Crash

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has recently requested in relation to his Department's review of the handling of the investigation into the crash of the ZD 576 Chinook helicopter in June 1994; and if he will make a statement.

The Rt. Hon. Adam Ingram: The House of Lords Select Committee expressed the opinion that the applicable standard of proof of absolutely no doubt whatsoever was not met by the Board of Inquiry finding. In the light of these comments, I have asked for further opinion in order to satisfy myself as to whether or not the legal approach adopted at the time was fully justified.

Sorry to have re-hash old ground guys, but there are still aspect of this case that confuse me. I have little doubt that the AM's verdict was harsh and not the one most people would agree with, but there are still aspects of the evidence and it's reading, that leave me a little uneasy, so help me out here.

If all circumstances were the same:

A: Had there been an FDR, (NO CVR) showing the aircraft to be in perfect working order prior to impact; would this have been evidence enough, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time, to find the pilots grossly negligent?

B: In the absence of an FDR or CVR, is it unjust and/or unsustainable, given similar circumstances, to find any pilot negligent, or grossly negligent, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time?

C: A ruling of Gross Negligence could only apply to the PROVEN conduct of the pilots, in the circumstances immediately prior to the accident. Not to any aspect of flight planning and/or airmanship decisions en-route?

Hi L&S,
don't worry. I've had to have several things explained to me several times!!;)

I'll try to answer your questionas as best as I can, however the answers are my own opinion and not that of the MoK Group or the families. Hope that's OK.

a. A FDR would certainly have strengthened the argument of the Air Marshals and the MoD. It may have resulted in a different verdict from the President of the BoI who, if you recall, did not find the pilots negligent. With the greatest of respect, this is purely a hypothetical question.

b. Yes and/or yes!! This is the point of the whole campaign.

c. Again, yes. However, the Air Marshals have moved the point at which they say negligence occurred every time doubt was cast upon their argument. I recall one mention of negligence occurring at the point of departure as that meant the crew would be over crew duty time. Another was at the point of waypoint change (wherever that was), and further one was at a point too close to the Mull for the pilots to take avoiding action. The last one presented as fact a knowledge of where the Chinook was and at what height and speed it was (despite the fact that the final figures are speculated).

I hope this has helped clear some concerns up for you. If not please let me know. As I said, this is my own opinion. If there is anything I have got wrong, someone please let me know and correct where necessary.

Two and a half months now gone, and still nothing from the MoD or Minister Hoon. Are they really that slow at reading? I read the whole thing on the train home!
Anyone know when the new simulation has/will take place?

Thanks again for everyone keeping this in the public domain.
Regards as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook