God bless the memory of all the souls who perished. They are remembered now and for evermore.


Maybe the campaign will gather pace now. John Major appeared on Sky this morning and stated quite clearly that not enough had been said and done in regard to the airworthiness of the aircraft. He said that the pilots should cleared of blame.

Rest In Peace

You all will not be forgotten

Lest we Forget

I shan't be at either memorial (on my way out to the desert for 3 years..), but I too am thinking of my colleagues, their passengers and their families.

Hi everyone,
I can't say that yesterday was a 'good day', but what I can say is that the memorial services went very well.

All were well attended and I hope that the level of support and thoughts from people, whether they were at a service or not, gave some comfort to the families of those who were lost.

My thanks, also to the media for their coverage of events.

The campaign for Rick and Jon is now firmly back in full swing!

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

What I can't come to terms with is why should a crew plan to fly what was virtually a public transport flight VFR from one side of Scotland to the other in duff weather, in an aircraft with limited icing capability and a sus FADEC system. If a PPL in a Cessna did this, we all know what the answer would be. I flew my first solo at 16, and have just retired from flying at 62, including HM aircraft, and I find this decision troubling. I have no axe to grind, and know that as aircrew, we all live in glass houses.

Croqueteer,
welcome to the thread.

Your questions have been asked several times before. May I respectfully suggest you read the thread from start to finish and visit the campaign website. That should provide you with some answers.

However, I would ask that you bear in mind the rules in place at the time that in order to find deceased aircraft negligent, there had to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Croqueteer,

I can save you a little time reading. The answer to your question is quite easily answered. The captain requested a Mk 1 aircraft that had an IFR capability, for obvious reasons. He didn't get one. The MANAGEMENT could therefore be seen to have "planned" them to fly VFR.

Of course, there is no such thing as Public Transport in military terms. The passengers could and should have been sent by other means (for example, by civilian Public Transport) but the RAF hierarchy didn't allow this. It appears they were too intent on showing that the MK2 was safe to fly on a high priority task, despite the test pilots having refused to continue to fly the type for the purpose of giving the aircraft a Release to Service, the method by which new aircraft are normally deemed to be safe to fly. This is the MOD equivalent of a civilian Certificate of Airworthiness. The type should NOT HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE, not for training, testing or any other purpose and most definitely NOT for passenger flights.

The result was that an "operational" decision was made and it ended in disaster. Blaming the deceased pilots released the same hierarchy from further scrutiny.

Thanks for the reply,whilst it is not feasable to read all the threads, I have had more than a "Cursery" glance at them, and have followed the case over the years. Your reply, ShyTorque, is exactly my point. Command decisions must be made regardless of pressure from above.

Roghead,
your MP is spineless then. Ingram will, of course, advise against signing, so perhaps direct your MP to this site and the Campaign one so that they can see the depth of feeling and the obvious injustice of the verdict.

Care to name and shame?

Croqueteer,
The only command decision available to the crew would have been to refuse to fly the Mk2 (no Mk1 available). This would have resulted in their Court Martial. If you want to look at resisting pressures from above, perhaps go higher up the food chain to see who was too weak to postpone the introduction of the Mk2 until it was fully serviceable for its intended purpose.

That, however, is another story. The only issue that I am concerned with is the rule of absolutely no doubt. This rule was broken and two pilots have been found guilty of negligence when the evidence does not support the verdict.

Regards, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Brian

We caught a few fleeting moments of a Sky News article a few days ago out here and got the feeling you were rounding out into the home straight now ? True ? Very sympathetic hearing we thought - Keep the faith !

Brian Dixon, I don't know what your background is, but you sure talk rubbish. No Captain would ever be court marshalled for making a sensible decision based on the facts provided.

PS Sorry form the spelling error, it is late at night.

Croqueteer

Have you read the thread as advised by Brian ? Courts Martial and their preparation are by no means infallible and serving personnel walk a fine line between duty and political expediency these days. I would request that you withdraw your assertion that Brian is talking rubbish because I think I speak for many in saying that his cogent reasoning and statement of the facts all the way through this marathon injustice has been the most eloquent tribute to the crew and to those still serving.

Yes, I apologise for making such a general statement, but as far as his remark regarding a court martial, he is wrong.

Ah Croqueteer

A gracious and dignified reply proving your pedigree in service of HM Queen Ltd :ok:

I am sure Brian will respond to highlight the pressures implicit in the "Go" decision that fateful day and I will maintain a respectful silence because I don't have all the facts either. You will of course excuse my emotive and instinctive support for the crew having had my fillings shaken out in the back of many a Chinook, Wessex, Lynx, Black Hawk and Puma for example, and with nothing but the fullest trust and confidence in the front seats.

My confidence in "Magic String", Flight Computers, Hydraulic Pumps, Servo Jacks, Yaw Parallel Actuators (another story for another time!) and main/tail rotor gearboxes/pinions, freewheel clutches and the like was never quite of the same order ;)

Croqueteer,
no need to apologise. Occasionally I do talk rubbish. However I try not to with regards this particular issue.

Looking at my original post, I was perhaps a little forthright in saying that the pilots would be Courts Martialled. I should have said could be Courts Martialled. May I ask what provided facts you refer to? Do you mean to me or to the crew?

I was working on the point that if the crew are told to fly a particular aircraft and they refuse, it could be deemed to be disobeying a direct order. You may recall that the Mk2 Chinook was the only serviceable Chinook in Aldergrove at the time, so there was no other option available to the crew than to take ZD576.

At the time of the accident spurious cockpit warnings were a regular occurrence across the Mk2 fleet, so they couldn't have even gone down the liine of "Well this particular Mk2 is a problem".

Where did that leave the crew?

I hope that answers your point. If not, please come back to me.

Pilgrim,
thank you for your words of support.

For those who can make it, don't forget the memorial at Westminster Abbey tomorrow at 2.00pm.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Croqueteer,

Could you please expand on your experience in flying HM's flying machines?

Trust me, pal, they really had no choice, and in any case, a VFR transit was fully feasible provided that they were able to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

I have seen no evidence which would have prevented me setting out that afternoon.

Had the wx got too bad, then I'd have aborted.

What befell our crew will never be known. And because the cause can never be determined beyond 'any doubt whatsoever', the fight will go on.

A VFR flight is always feasable if you can remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface! Also my point was not that they refuse to fly a MkII, but that planning the flight with the available equipment and the given forecast, the go/no go decision was their decision to make. Now that I have seen the reaction, I am bowing out of this thread.

Croqueteer,
you have your opinion, and I respect that.

I'm sorry you feel that you can't stay to argue your points further.
Good luck and thanks for your comments.

Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Croque

Why bow out, when all we are asking is that you justify your opinions.

The go/no go is never that clear cut in the SH world.

I'm not in his area, but Mr McFall should have just received an e-mail from the Irritating Sod :E

Thank you, Roghead, for your support.
Kind regards, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook