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.