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" />