New Article
 

New news article on the BBC site this morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/2028078.stm

Chinook Petition
 

CHOCKS
It really is easy to sign the petition. I advise everyone to check out the site and sign today. Keep up the good work .

Thanks XEXPAT, the names are trickling in nicely.

For those who may not have seen it, the petition states:

"We, the undersigned, believe that there is no evidence to support a verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lt Rick Cook and Flt Lt Jon Tapper."

If you wish to add your name to the petition, please go to campaign's website at www.chinook-justice.org and click on the Petition box on the left. Put your name in the box and click "Add Name", and that's all there is to it.

Your support will make the difference.

Another excellent article from Tony Collins and Computer Weekly . Three stories are available on their web site:

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113030

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113027

http://www.cw360.com/bin/bladerunner...9&CARTI=113043

People just keep coming out and speaking about this injustice, don't they. Perhaps they are all trying to tell the Government and MoD something. Perhaps they should start listening.
I wonder how many more people are out there waiting to tell their story?

We will NOT go away.
Cheers Tony and Computer Weekly for yet another great contribution.
Thanks to everyone for their support.

If you haven't signed the petition, please give it serious consideration.
If you haven't contacted your MP please also consider doing so.

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

For those that haven't seen it yet
 

Top story in today's Scotsman:

Fiscal accuses MoD of Chinook cover-up

John Staples


THE law officer who investigated the catastrophic Chinook helicopter crash has described the conclusions of the Ministry of Defence inquiry as "ridiculous" - and claims the MoD attempted to block his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry (FAI).

Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said there was no basis for the central finding - that pilots Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper were guilty of "gross negligence" and to blame for the accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June, 1994.

He also claimed the release of a technical report into the disaster was held up, preventing the FAI taking place for 18 months. Mr Henderson also called into question the ability of the military to remain impartial in their attempt to find the cause of the RAF’s worst peacetime accident, which killed 29 people, including the cream of Britain’s anti-terrorism intelligence.

Three reports have already dismissed the MoD’s claims of pilot error, but earlier this year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, refused to back the most recent one, by the House of Lords, which also poured scorn on the official version of events. Relatives of the pilots have dismissed the official findings as a whitewash and believe there were technical defects with the Chinook helicopter.

In his first interview about the crash investigation, published today in Computer Weekly magazine, Mr Henderson said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."

He said the MoD’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay.

He added: "It was obvious that they were concerned that they could not control the outcome of our inquiry."

Following these findings, doubts were raised about the reliability of a new computer software system - FADEC - used to fly the aircraft. Asked what he thought of the MoD’s verdict, Mr Henderson told the magazine: "Ridiculous."

The Chinook helicopter smashed into the 1,404ft Beinn na Lice in atrocious weather conditions during a flight from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George, near Inverness. As well as Flight Lieutenants Cook, 30, and Tapper, 28, two experienced crewmen and 25 of the most senior SAS and MI5 counter-terrorist officers were killed, including the head of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland.

Mr Henderson, who is now retired, said he believes a technical report by Tony Cable, chief investigator of the crash at the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, was ready in late 1994, a few months after the accident.

He added: "I could not have an FAI without the technical report. There would have been a huge hole in the middle of my investigation"

Although the technical investigation report was dated 5 January 1995, the MoD did not make it available to Mr Henderson until June of that year.

He said he was then told that it could not be used as evidence for an FAI without the MoD’s clearance.

"Eventually I got a grudging letter from the MoD saying I could lodge the report [in September 1995]. That was after I had asked the Crown Office to take the matter up at a ministerial level," Mr Henderson said.

He insisted that the delay made it almost impossible for the families to prepare a case for a judicial review within the stipulated three-month time period of the judgment by the RAF Board of Inquiry in April 1995.

Although Mr Cable’s report found no evidence of any technical cause of the crash, it revealed many uncertainties over the state of equipment damaged by impact. In particular, it said one of the Chinook MK2’s FADEC control systems had been destroyed in a fire .

The FAI eventually concluded that there was no evidence to support the RAF’s findings against the pilots.

But Mr Henderson said the resistance he met in holding an FAI "does not inspire much confidence in the impartiality of the MoD".

In response to allegations of hindering the FAI, the MoD said in a statement: "The MoD believes it co-operated fully with Sheriff Sir Stephen Young's FAI. Indeed, the Lord Advocate has since stated there is no evidence to justify re-opening that inquiry".


This article:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=609222002

More Chinook inquiry:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213

Still Hitting Back
 

A few questions regarding the current impasse over the Chinook Campaign.

Q1 Why is it that PM Blair, Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon, and two senior Air Officers consider that they alone are the only parade members marching in step?

Q2 What does one consider may be in the can of worms that these four and MoD are sitting so resolutely on, and trying desperately to prevent being opened?

Q3 What is the constitutional situation whereby this particular group can defy the findings of so many other legally constituted inquiries, all of which have been unable to find a cause of the subject accident, “beyond reasonable doubt”?

Like all others I am saddened by the King Chanute attitude displayed by the gang of four.

HectorusRex
:confused:

The Scotsman again:

Blair urged to sort out Chinook fiasco

Hamish Macdonell Scottish Political Editor


TONY Blair was facing demands last night that he intervene personally to end the confusion over the Chinook helicopter crash.

David Davis, the Conservative Party chairman, called on the Prime Minister to get involved after the law officer who investigated the 1994 crash claimed the Ministry of Defence had blocked his efforts to set up a fatal accident inquiry.

Iain Henderson, the then Campbeltown procurator fiscal, said this week that the military stalled a technical report into the crash in which 29 people, including top British intelligence officers, were killed on the Mull of Kintyre.

And he claimed that there was no basis for the MoD’s central finding, that the pilots, Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were guilty of "gross negligence", lambasting the ministry’s inquiry as ridiculous.

Relatives of the pilots have claimed there were technical defects with the helicopter.

Mr Henderson’s intervention represents the latest in a series of developments since the 1994 crash, almost all of which have cast doubt on the findings of the MoD defence inquiry.

Mr Davis said yesterday that the only way the affair could be cleared up now, particularly following the claims that the MoD had tried to block an initial inquiry, was with the intervention of the Prime Minister.

Mr Davis said: "These are very serious allegations, and I expect the government to give full and prompt answers to explain why the MoD seemed to impede the inquiry into the crash.

"What is worrying is that this is yet another indication of the MoD’s less than impartial attitude to this case.

"This shows that nothing less than the personal intervention of the Prime Minister is needed to ensure that justice is done.

"We can never be convinced of a fair and just outcome if the final decision is simply left to the Ministry of Defence."

Mr Henderson sparked the latest controversy over the eight-year-old crash in an interview with Computer Weekly magazine.

He said: "The MoD did not want to have a fatal accident inquiry at all."

The military’s repeated "stalling" over the release of the technical report made him believe the ministry had an "ulterior motive" for the delay, he said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that the military had co-operated fully with the FAI.


This article:

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=618962002

More Chinook inquiry:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=213

Hectorus,
Just my opinion but here's an attempt to answer your questions:

Question 1.
When you have your fingers in your ears, you can't hear the band or the commands.
Besides, we're all serfs. They know best. :rolleyes:

Question 2.
a. Who took the decision to keep the Mk 2 in service.
b. Who took the decision to fly the pax on a dodgy aircraft.
c. Who took the decision to select which information was to be given to investigators.
d. Who took the decision to withold certain information from investigators.
e. What information is held that has not been classed as 'evidence' and therefore not disclosed.

There are plenty more of those little worms too!

Question 3.
I'm not sure it is constitutional. We may be putting it to the test sometime soon!

You may recall that King Canute lost his particular battle :D

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

Still Hitting Back
 

Hi Brian,
I think the answer to all is a big "YES":D

The pessimistic part of me suggests that little will change until the matter starts popping up more regularly on the TV news, thereby pushing it more in to the eye-level of the voting public. Newspaper and magazine coverage is great, but considering the literacy rates in this country and the pervasive nature of television, the way to get the public interested is for it to keep cropping up on the boob-tube. Interested public ask questions, which the media then want to cover/answer in order to gain more viewers/readers and so it would become a self-feeding loop for a while (until the public get bored again, or a new pop star is discovered or Kylie gets married). It was this 'frenzy' that created enough pressure to ditch Byers, so it should be enough to pressure BLiar in to pushing for a resolution here as well. Trouble is, how do you get the TV news to push it in to the public eye further?

The Daily Mail are usually pretty proactive on injustice campaigns, and not afraid to have a crack at the Government of the day. they must be worth a phone call. I am aslo surprised the DT have not taken it further.

What is needed is some dodgy advisory e-mail - not being flippant here, and anyway the incident was pre MoD e mail, but you know what I mean. In view of the Paddington news this week, you can bet this campaign has been vetted for political motive, and the lead individuals probably deeply vetted.

However there is a down side to raising the PR stakes - because ulitmately if you are playing poker with 2 pairs [4 Aces :)] it don't matter how much you can flatten the other side, if they have a huge warchest they can see you off the park. You have the winnning hand but still lose - unless you can find a benefactor. Someone with huge public clout who could lead. Question - who?

There are of course the familes to consider - any attempt at the very public route would have to be with their consent.

I have more faith in the Scots justice systrem and the Scots Parliament than I do in London, where El Presidente knows no limits to his arrogance and disregard for protocol, as the Jubilee proved in a different way.

Brian's questions listed above seem to allude to a significant engineer somewhere in the loop, and one wonders if it is the engineering branch that are holding the parcel at the moment, and a little fearful of the music stopping.

The can of worms may be in that argument somewhere, unless it is the simple issue of the peace process at all costs.

Maybe there is a fear that a decision on this case would raise concerns that a/c maintenance would be vunerble to wholesale contractorisation, which of course may be a hidden agenda at MoD anyway. I have been convinced that the treasury are locked in a deth battle with MoD for some years, and the contractorisation process slots in nicely to a weakening of their direct sphere of influence.

We could do a lot worse than have a concerted letter campaign to our MPs for starters, as many of you have. Good letters to the DT and The Times are always worth a try as well, and if they have a high profile series of names on them, they can be effective.

As Brian says, it costs little to keep trying. Think of it as a bit like eating an elephant.

Text of Letter being sent to Rt Hon Tony Blair MP

Dear Prime Minister

RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994

As a lawyer you will be aware that in order to prove negligence there are three obstacles that have to be overcome.

1 That a duty of care was owed

In the case of Flt Lts Cook and Tapper the pilots of an RAF Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576 that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994 it is accepted that they owed a duty of care to the occupants of that aircraft.

2 That the duty of care was breached

The House of Lords Select Committee on Chinook ZD 576 published on 31 January 2002 concluded in para 174 that “we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash”.

RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased aircrew could be found negligent only where there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

3 That damages flowed from that breach

As there was no finding of breach of duty this does not apply.

I would be grateful if you could explain to me why your Government has not acted to correct the wrong caused to the deceased officers and their families in what is basically a simple matter of law and why they are not being afforded the natural justice to which they are entitled.

I look for forward to your reply

slj

Still Hitting Back
 

Keeping it on top!mg]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/bttt.gif[/img]
HectorusRex

I urge all of you to go to Computer Weekly -
http://www.cw360.com
put Chinook in their search box, top left, - they have really done a job on reporting this.
I've just written to thank the editor Karl.

The Computer Weekly story and the cover up allegation was in my view a big story, but the media as a whole were not interested. It received disappointing coverage, but what coverage there was was good. Full credit to the Scottish press.

My understanding is that the media will only become interested in it again when the "final result" is known. Given that we seem to be drifting to an unfavourable result, this is not good at all.

I think it would be helpful if some SERVING pilots made their concerns publicly known about this again. That would make them sit up and take notice. Easier said than done, I appreciate though.

TL.:(

B.T.T.T.


To save putting the thread back to the top. I have put it up there 'permanently'!

the chinook
 

as an ex serving member of the raf(non aircrew) the one thing that has always stuck in my mind about the chinook crash is the fact that the first two numbers on the chinook transponder were 77, this was not mentioned in the accident report but was reported in the fatal accident inquiry. incidentally the channel four documentary made a great fuss about the fai saying how there wouldnt have been one if the accident had happened in england. this is true, but in england it would have been the subject of an inquest by the coroner, coroners dont exist in scotland. i'll finish on a slightly cynical note, i cant help wondering if there would have been all this publicity if it had not been carrying all those int personnel(and just why were they all travelling together, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to go by civvy air) and if the father of one of the pilots hadnt been an ex airline captain, and if it had been nco pilots i dont think air marshal wratten would have found them negligent. dont forget wratten had sent out a letter to all station commanders about officers bahaviour, and not before time!

Canberra
The points you make do nothing to further either debate or the campaign. There is no evidence explaining precisely the motive of the senior air officers. If you have the evidence, rather than cynical general points of view, place them on this thread.
Many ask the question why these men and one woman were put on a mil. craft - it was SOP. The request for them to fly together came from one of the pax who subsequently died. The pax had no idea Tapper had asked to use a Mk1 for the transit because he didn't trust ZD576. Odiham did know about the request and turned him down. That probably brings us closer to the truth over Air Marshal motive than anything else I have read.
What do others think?

chinook
 

i think the point about the first two digits on the transponder being 77 are great big points!! do u know of any transponder code that starts with 77 cos i sure dont!!!! on subject of air marshals just why did they say it was negligence when ap said you couldnt say that without evidence. and as for putting all your int people in one aircraft well they say military intelligence is an oxymoron.

canberra

There's plenty of codes in the 77** series

7701-7717 Superdomestic - UK to USA
7720-7727 ORCAM Transit Munich
7730-7757 Superdomestic Shannon Eastbound landing UK
7760-7775 Superdomestic UK to Channel Isles
7776-7777 SSR Monitors

plus pilots are not unknown to get digits mixed up or wrong either ... do it myself when I'm flying as well sometimes.

The conspicuity code of 7000 is only one digit away from that other one.

The constitutional point is that almost everything in the forces answers to the MoD, through that to the defence sec, through him to Cabinet, through that to the PM, through him (in irrelevant theory) to the Queen. The only parliamentary oversight is that both the defence secretary and the PM are (like all ministers) responsible to parliament. But - it's obviously tough to shift a whole defence secretary, as long as the PM backs him and they have a majority. (Especially as in this case he can always plead that it didn't happen on his watch)

So - what? The only way is to keep making a fuss until the parliamentary and media pressure overrides the bureaucrats' advice to ministers to shut up. Once the conflict with the press and the MPs gets bigger than that with the 'crats, something's gotta give. Good luck!

PPrune Radar,

7000 isn't a squawk normally used by UK military aircraft. Although it is some time since I retired from the rotary service in question, I recall that 4321 or 4322 would have been more appropriate for such a flight.

Something else that has not been paid too much attention to is the co-pilot's intercom box being found selected to the "Emergency" position in the wreckage.

But all this speculation is really irrelevant. We all know that the verdict shouldn't have been brought and the HOL and Scottish inquiries support that view.

This will probably not be resolved by MOD until a certain VSO retires, in order not to upset the status quo applecart within.

ShyTorque,

7000 is the routine squawk for Mil Rotary operating at low level without a radar service, as the aircraft was, so routine that that is what I would expect them to have had on in that situation.

Since the recent server upgrade to the campaign's website (www.chinook-justice.org), the number of hits on the site and names added to the petition has gone up - thanks to everyone.

Sadly, one individual has been abusing the new automated system for signing the petition by adding fake names. Accordingly, I have had to start moderating signatures again - you can still sign the petition online, but it won't appear until we have approved it. It just means a bit more inconvenience for me, but it won't affect the campaign, so no harm done. A number of names added to the petition in the last 10 days have been removed. If you have signed the petition please check the page and email [email protected] if we have removed your name in error.

To the idiot who thinks it's clever to put things like "Mr A Tosser" into the petition - well done mate, you've achieved nothing, but I'm sure the widows, children & families of the 29 people killed in the crash are impressed all the same.

Do please rest assured................
 

that should Brian, Chocks or A.N.Other bring a name to me who is guilty of the kind of behaviour Chocks has indicated above, I will GUARANTEE a ban without question, fear or favour. This will also include a ban on the individual's ISP's.

It is an incredibly stupid and juvenile thing to do. Especially to such a serious thread as this. It beggars belief!

PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]

PlasticCabDriver,

Thanks, I'll have to bow to your recent knowledge of the squawk code. It used to be 4321 for not requiring a radar service and 4322 when climbing out of the LFA and requesting one. The 7000 has obviously now been accepted in accordance with civvy ops.

Chocks

Certainly it was an apt name for that sort of person - Tosser.

Good for you Pop. It was most irresponsible act.

Brian/Chocks

Letter sent.

Brian

I am probably one of the few on this forum who knows you personally and I cannot thank you enough for getting this travesty the coverage it deserves. Many have said that this is picking over old sores. Many who were directly involved have said this out of a desire to try and put this whole travesty behind them. How can a new type come into service when personnel think ”If this can happen then what of our widows ?”.

One day I'll grow up and use my real name on this forum.

Susan
:D

Edited to save to confusion!

Email received.

Letter to MP sent today!

Oh I See

Given the fact that computers control everything nowadays, many of the autonomously, this disgraceful saga has implications that go far beyond the world of (military) aviation.

BTW.....whoever submitted false names to the petition should be named and shamed.

We've had a staggering response to last weekend's mailshot - by my count around 40 MP's should have received letters, emails or faxes asking them to support the Early Day Motion in the last few days.

To answer a couple of questions which came up repeatedly:
1. There is no need to send the MP a copy of the EDM as they have access to the full text.
2. The list of MP's who have signed the EDM can be found on http://edm.ais.co.uk/ and searching for EDM no 829

The campaign website will be updated this weekend to reflect the push on the EDM, incorporating a couple of suggestions made via email.

If anyone who didn't receive the mailshot wishes to contact their MP, Brian Dixon posted a suggested text on page 11 in this thread, or email [email protected] and I will send you the details.

On behalf of Brian, myself and the rest of the campaign team, thank you for supporting this initiative.

Well done Chocks, excellent stuff on the EDM. Hopefully it will start climbing up in numbers.

Now get a friendly MP to table an amendment to the EDM (which adds to it), castigating the Government for taking so long to consider the Report, calls for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, and warns the Government against slipping out a negative verdict on the quiet last sitting Friday before the summer recess.

Not that I am trying to add to your work load or anything!

Hi all,
I know I've said it a thousand times, but Thank you for your continued support. The response from the e-mail has been fantastic.

PPRuNe Pop - Thank you for your support. Hopefully the idiot has now gone back to their village!

Oh I See - Hope you are well. Please promise me that you'll never grow up. I've heard that it's not all it's cracked up to be!!

Chocks - What can I say? Thanks. (There I go again!).

Hopefully the Government will announce something soon, although I fear that they will play the 'big boy in the playground' card so as to let us mortals know who is in charge. The MoD will always back their top people too!

Too bad. The awkward questions will start and constitutional questions will be asked. More people will speak out at this injustice and we will not go away.

I hope the PM has the 'moral courage' to finally do something positive, although I won't be holding my breath.

Please keep up the pressure.
My very best wishes, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

This is the latest from Alan "That's Lord to You, Boy" Chalfont:

SCOTSMAN
Lords threat to RAF
THE House of Lords may today invoke an obscure order that could ground the RAF in a bid to force Tony Blair to act on a report into the Chinook helicopter disaster. They could withhold approval of a routine armed forces order in response to the Prime Minister's refusal to act on a House of Lords committee report which said the negligence verdict against the Chinook helicopter crash pilots was "unjustifiable".

Lord Chalfont, head of the Parliamentary campaign to clear the pilots, yesterday tabled an amendment to the Armed Forces Discipline Act (Continuation) Order - normally nodded through by the Lords - which, if taken to a vote, could ground the RAF.

A timely reminder to the MoD of the constitutional need for Government departments to act in accordance with the rule of law.

Perhaps this will focus their attention on this injustice.
Well done M'lud.

For information, EDM 829 currently stands at 98 signatures.

Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Having emailed my MP, he signed yesterday.

Thank you Mr. John Mann! :cool:

Email sent to my MP, Paul Burstow, who has stated that he will sign the EDM.

We pray.

EDM up to 99 today with a flurry of new signatures. Good work folks.

This was also debated quite extensively in the Lords yesterday, following on from Lord Chalfont's amendment to a routine continuation order. Good work LC.

Link to the full debate:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...m#20619-23_dl0

Thanks for the link TL Thou. It's worth reading the whole thing, but there were a couple of interesting points. The debate was over the continuation of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts, which jointly constitute a large part of the authority of the armed forces in the UK. The Acts are renewed every few years by Parliament. Lord Chalfont proposed an amendment that the Acts should not be renewed until the Govt responds to the Chinook Select Committee.

For the Govt, Lord Bach said "The committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex, technical, legal and, we believe, airmanship issues". My first thought was how can there be "airmanship issues" when there are no facts to testify as to the airmanship, or lack of it?

On the subject of the simulation being carried out by Boeing, Lord Bach went on: "Boeing has also been asked to re-examine to what extent the minimum speed at the way-point can be established". It looks as if they are hoping to use the simulation as "evidence" to prove their "airmanship issues" - ie blame the pilots.

Interestingly, they made this commitment "We intend to make the evidence produced through Boeing's work, in the light of the re-modelling process, available ", albeit with the predictable caveat "although there may be some matters of commercial sensitivity which preclude publication of some elements."

On the subject of the timescale, Lord Bach said "We will report within the six months that we are allowed." However, as became apparent, the actual expiry of the 6 months is somewhat unclear (to some at least):

Lord Bach: "The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February, not 3lst January, of this year."

Lord Chalfont: "There is not much argument about it because it is printed on the report—ordered to be printed on 31st January. As far as I am concerned that is when the report was issued. However, we will not argue about five days when we have already waited this length of time for the Ministry of Defence response. "

The date of the summer recess is not yet known, but as a guide the Commons recess in 2001 was 20th July, and the Lords on 24th July. In previous years recesses have generally been in the last week of July, or early in August. That 5 days may yet prove to be important.

Lord Bach conceded in the debate that the announcement would be late in the session, and would not give time for a debate before the recess. That means that the earliest opportunity for a debate will be in October. We'll be waiting .......