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.