Chinook ZD576 - The Concealed Evidence
 

David Hill has now published this final book in his Mull of Kintyre trilogy. As usual it is in both Kindle format for £2.99, and in a paper book version at £6.99 plus P&P (hint, add Citadel of Waste at the same time for free delivery!). It contains the evidence that was submitted to Lord Philip's Mull of Kintyre Review but had been withheld by the RAF/MOD, even from its own BoI. That evidence led to the announcement from SoS for Defence Liam Fox setting aside the infamous Reviewing Officers' Finding of Gross Pilot Negligence and raised the question, then why was ZD576 lost with all 29 occupants? The RAF/MOD has still to answer that question and the cover up continues...



Edited to add that David wishes to emphasise that by its very nature this is more a reference book rather than simply telling a story. I suspect his readers will take it in their customary stride!

Thanks chug. I'd noticed a two part film scheduled on BBC N. Ireland and looks like the first part is this Monday at 2240. Presumably for the upcoming 30th anniversary. I can pick it up here on a good day but it'll be on iplayer. Part 1 is "Catastrophic Loss" and part 2 "Dead Men Don't Talk".

This year will mark the 30th anniversary of the terrible tragedy that occurred on the slopes of the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994. Little wonder then that a renewed focus on this, the worst of all the airworthiness related fatal accident threads featured on this forum (Nimrod, Hercules, Sea Kings, Tornado, Hawks) is now becoming apparent. The BBC NI is airing a two part programme, "Chinook Zulu Delta 576" next Monday and the week following. It starts at 1040pm for 1 hour. If you can't tune in to BBC NI then it will be on iPlayer too.

BBC One - Chinook: Zulu Delta 576, Series 1, Catastrophic Loss

PS Thanks Dervish, we crossed, but all the better to highlight the importance of the occasion. I for one will be setting the PVR to record both programmes.

Channel 966 on the Sky box for those who have it

Channel 863 (outside NI) on Virgin - I have set a series link to record on my TiVo box

Channel 966 on Freesat

What I don't understand with these government style cover ups is why bother. Just admit where you went wrong and then 30-40 years later no one will be talking about it.
Cover it up and have it fester far longer.

If you "admit where you went wrong" you open yourself up to legal redress, sued for damages, etc. Reputations are also ruined, people do/should lose their jobs, pension, perks etc..

Far simpler for those at the top to deflect attention, blame someone else, invent a false narrative, do a bit of gas lighting - and I'm not just talking about the Chinook here (post office scandal just a recent example), it's widespread.

Agreed Biggus. If you put your hand up to issuing an RTS into squadron service for a knowingly grossly unairworthy aircraft, ignoring a CA clearance permitting switch on use only (for static training), you'll end up doing time. Or should do! Hence the cover up that continues still.

See also BBC Scotland on Tuesday evening.

I do hope that there is another one to come (a quadrology?) in which David describes the events when the Reviewing Officers are publicly stripped of any honours they have received (cf. Paula Vennells).

I've not read the book, so this might seem an inapt point, but if evidence was denied to the BOI as alleged, why would you assume the reviewing officers would have had it?

Paula Vennells was not stripped of her honour, she elected to return it. That seems justified as it was awarded for he time as CE of the Post Office.

Would you have Sir John Day hand back awards unconnected with the Mull of Kintyre? If so, it'd set an interesting precedent.

If you haven't read any of the books its not inapt at all. It's a fair question.

I know you probably mean Wratten and Day, but CAS (Graydon) was also a reviewing officer. The biggest lie of them all was, in my opinion, his claim to Marshal of the RAF Sir John Grandy that they 'were some miles off course'. The letter was submitted to the Mull of Kintyre Review in evidence.

The Board obviously didn't have that 'evidence' as they foolishly assumed the aircraft was heading for a waypoint close to the light house, unaware of Graydon's first hand evidence. However, Graydon has chosen not to reveal what course they should have been on, so it's a fair assumption that the Board was right; and so was the waypoint evidence held in the nav computer, which aligned with the route planning map.

And of course AVM John Day had, he claimed, absolute knowledge of what was seen by the crew from the cockpit; an unimpressed Lord Philip saying 'Sir John Day’s approach places the onus of disproving negligence on the deceased, which is also wrong’.

He also claimed to the Lords that Beinn na Lice was an almost sheer cliff face extending over 600 feet higher at point of impact, and they headed straight for it. No doubt the Board, who actually visited the gentle slopes, were puzzled over that one.

It's easy to get confused, because 600 feet is also the minimum height the cloud base was above the aircraft, according to the statement by the only an eye-witness to the approach. Or at least the only statement published. The RO's position was the cloud base was 700 feet lower, but again they didn't reveal their source. As this statement destroys the RO's case, one can only wonder what the unpublished ones say.

A close second in the porky stakes is the claim by the Air Staff that at the time (2 June 1994) there was no such thing as a Release to Service. (The Master Airworthiness Reference). The Air Staff copy from 7 months before was given to the Review. Lord Philip was distinctly unimpressed with that one, and a Minister was eventually forced to issue an apology.

There's lots more!

Tecumseh, you have more than a passing interest and knowledge in CAE 5000 etc,, and the previous basis of certification related to MTC and to continued airworthiness, are you able to expand on the "There's lots more"?

Nothing in the handling of the Chinook accident sat well, and the concerns related to the acceptance for use of the DEECs smacks of expediency and has a possibility to have been a factor in the event. The greatest concern is that a defence service which has arguably a tradition of competency fails to remove the stigma of less than independent competent investigation into its own disasters. This is unfortunately a situation that exists in many services but does not sit well with the relabelling of the regulation of defence aviation to include the term "Safety". Where command has oversight of the mishaps, there is an unacceptably high risk of expediency that has potential to continue risks needlessly.

Fascinating and thanks for filling in some blanks.

Cock-up or conspiracy?

The latter seems to be suggested but, as is so often the case, the former might be more likely. I know many people gravitate towards the idea of conspiracy, but is there actual evidence of this that would stand up in court were someone to be prosecuted for something like perjury? Your use of porky implies it was a lie, but was it a deliberate falsehood?

The big conspiracy here was to grant an RTS to a knowingly grossly unairworthy aircraft. Too many people knew it was unairworthy and why, except the aircrew who were told nothing but suspected it nonetheless. As tuc suggests, read the book. There is too much to lay it all out here.

But here I am and so is this subject, so forgive me if I try to elicit some information on it. I wasn't asking for all the information, just some views it and of course no-one is obliged to answer. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I've done attaining and maintaining airworthiness a lot more recently than continuing! I've always felt your career should work backwards through this sequence, but that's no longer MoD policy, and it shows. In my day, many moons ago, you were examined in both MoD and CAA procedures before being allowed to do continuing; then the others were formal appointments whereby you were (uniquely) named in the contracts. So never believe MoD when it says responsible individuals can't be identified.

When I say there are lots more examples, I'm also referring to the book 'Citadel of Waste' and (I haven't counted them, but probably over 40) case studies, across air, land and sea domains, over a period of 35 years.

Many of these examples of waste led directly to fatal accidents; and in the ZD576 case this can be seen in a Director Flight Safety report of August 1992 in which he complains of that year's 25% cut in direct airworthiness funding (the second of three successive cuts). What he didn't know was it was done to compensate for quite deliberate waste, and the book explains why, by whom, and quotes from the warnings they were given as to the effect their fraud would have on air safety. If you're warned of that, by specialist staff, auditors, and other senior officers and officials, and continue, then that is deliberate. If more than one person is involved, and the act serves to conceal an offence, then (to address Rheinstorff's question) that is a conspiracy.

Might I suggest, for the price of a cup of coffee, you get the Kindle version and then ask anything you like. I'm happy to explain.



Rheinstorff. Cock-up or conspiracy. What more do you need than Lord Philip confirming that it was mandated upon the Air Staff that the Chinook HC Mk2 was not to be relied upon in any way, and he was prohibited from signing an RTS; but he did? MoD has been invited many times by various parts of the media to debate this openly, but has always refused.

The book(s) list those who knew, by name. Not one said anything, or came forward during the Mull of Kintyre Review. There's even written evidence the Senior Reviewing Officer knew this before he wrote his remarks. A letter was written shortly after the accident demanding that the work to declare the Mk2 airworthy be hastened. (Not much Boscombe can do when all they have is an unrepresentative prototype). While the House of Lords did well overall, their act of allowing this to be concealed extended the campaign for 10 years. That's an awful lot of people involved, just in that one example.

Very helpful response, thank you.

Rheino ...

'It' is now seven books long ... covering thirty years of 'undetected crime' mostly via bad head-office decisions, followed by conspiracy, lies and self-serving, blame-shuffling cover-ups that has so far killed over a hundred service folk unnecessarily. Not on the scale of several dear leaders elsewhere, I admit, but with no apology, no visible change of practice and no come-uppance.

Much of it is still going on today and there is still little but prayer to prevent further similar accidents and further MoD-inflicted unnecessary loss of life.

Back to Mr Hill's new book - 'The Concealed Evidence' - referring to Appendix 5 dealing with AMSO (later to become AML) and AP830 - Leaflet DM87.

In 1987 the 'cold war' had a couple of years to run and the invasion of Kuwait was not far off. AMSO and DM87 were so damaging to UK military posture over so many years, that under other regimes, this would have been treated as sabotage and treason and the perpetrators punished accordingly.

Just an obliging view... - ... LFH
...

If I'm not mistaken, AMSO himself from 1987 used to post here on the Mull of Kintyre thread for many years, saying the pilots were guilty as charged. He would never explain why, just throwing random accusations around, and IIRC never answered any questions from other posters. The book is astonishing and probably made Lord Philips job pretty easy.

He was AMSO from 1985-1987 and used to post as 'John Purdey'.

He died on 25th December 2022.

Was I rude to him? Was he the one saying the pilots were already grossly negligent because they didn’t take breakfast in the Officers’ Mess? I can’t remember.

I hope so. During my time there I seldom was in a position to eat there at the normal mealtimes, same as many other crews. That’s why the crew room had rations delivered every day.

Watched both episodes. Excellent. Quite a lot about the effect on the families, which is the way the BBC advertised it. But let rip at MoD and especially the labour government in part 2. The Air Marshal interviewed by Paxman came across as a slimy toad in the snippet they showed. The test pilot Mr Burke was brilliant.

Whilst I realise the two episodes of 'Chinook: Zulu Delta 576' are now available to view via BBC iPlayer, I don't understand why these episodes were only screened by the BBC in Northern Ireland. Does anyone here know why the BBC felt the rest of the license-paying public should be excluded from being able to view this on mainstream BBC channels?

An excellent programme and I agree that Mr Burke was superb. But why was this programme almost hidden away by being only shown in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Even there it was put on late at night. I only knew it was on because of this thread. On the other hand, Radio Times was plastered with pictures and articles about Masters of the Air which seemed to be only available on Apple TV.

Oops! I'm glad I'm not the only one asking this question.

The production company, Fine Point Films, is based in Belfast. They make numerous excellent documentaries aimed at, mainly, Northern Ireland, and flog them to the BBC.

This was the umpteenth attempt to get a decent, truthful documentary out, and each time canned by London. FPF first tried in 2016, others before them. The crash happened in Scotland, and killed a lot of Irishmen and military. So, no interest in London. Perhaps to get through the BBC censors, the producers decided this time to concentrate on the effect on the families. But the final part of Part 1, with Rob Burke, sets up Part 2 nicely and MoD get both barrels through the simple device of telling the truth.

The families were amazing. Chris Cook, the pilot's brother. Former RAF pilot Niven Phoenix and his mum Susan. Ann Magee. Stephen Foster.

David Walmsley of the Toronto Globe & Star got all the right points across. The weather was good. A long history of Undemanded Flight Control Movements. The RAF were prohibited from flying the aircraft. Wratten and Day said there could only be 'speculation' as to cause, but that speculation met the test of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Be warned. My telly only just survived the extract of Wratten sneering at Paxman.

Tuc, thanks very much for your thorough response. You confirmed my suspicions of a 'nobody cares about this' attitude from the BBC, a truly biased and warped organisation, if ever I saw one.

I saw Wratten at work, in Bahrain, in a pre-sortie briefing during the 1991 Gulf War. He was a good example of a highly dislikeable, self-interested, pompous ass. To find out much later, after this tragic Mull of Kintyre event, that he also had a metaphorically close interest in visual examination of his lower colon, came as no surprise. 🙄

He was certainly incredibly fortunate to be advanced from KBE to GBE in the circumstances.

Jack

Just taught myself iPlayer (yes, really - I never watch the telly these days...) to view the 2-parter. They used the 2 hours very well to get the important points across - fortunately everyone involved is articulate. I'm particularly impressed by the way the Belfast Telegraph/ Toronto Globe and Mail reporter realised his error then set out to correct it - an example many of the people featured over and over again in Mr Hill's books could learn from.

I'm pretty sure I've written in the original thread about my afternoon with Wratten in Bosnia (where he arrived resplendent in his flying suit with 56 Sqn scarf - in the colours of the Bosnian flag, ISTR). As a QHI on task, when first encountering an individual you only ask questions to which you already know the answer. I'd checked with the Sqn and spoken to the previous Chinook mate who'd flown him in the front seat - so I wasn't in the least surprised when his answer to my question about any previous Chinook flying experience was an emphatic "no". I agree with Tuc - Wrotten positively oozed out of the screen during his interview.

I recently watched part of the 2016 series The Somme 1916:Both Sides of the Wire. One of the themes Peter Barton extracted from reading the evidence was Germans were expected to identify and report on their failings so lessons could be learnt, the British tried cover up theirs. Plus ça change.

Programs were very good and stirred the heart strings! Although, I would have liked to have it had more-openly discussed exactly what 'new evidence' (previously undisclosed by MoD) eventually swayed Lord Philip and the panel. I would imagine that the whole CHART report detailing so many airworthiness issues was key and the previously well-hidden BD signal about the ac automatics not doing what was required after a long while in a S&L transit (i.e. turning right instead of left) would have been right up there.

Interestingly, I had not previously heard the lighthouse keeper quite so clearly describing that the ac 'turned inland'.... for me, that says "UFCM" and tallies with Rob B and Tony C's reading of the odd rudder and flight control positions on impact - but guess we'll never know exactly.

But ultimately, Day and Wrotten were never, ever justified in making their adjudication of gross negligence - I think that is now an accepted fact by anyone with a modicum of nous. The legal advice was equally poor - any barrack room lawyer could have seen that 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' was an impossible burden of proof (it was meant to be) and D&W could not meet it.

However, if we are to be fair (a concept denied to Jon, Rick and their families for far too long), then whilst D &W come across as 'oily' in the extreme, they too, are only human and prone to errors. Whilst they seem reluctant to admit that, they must have had some reason for abandoning any grasp of logic and understanding - no-one could be that stupid without some exceptional 'motivation' to find against those could not answer back. I doubt it was money that was motivating them, or a sense of wider duty (both far too self-centred for that), so it was likely to be external and/or peer pressure - warning of possible loss of face/kudos if they didn't be good little boys and toe the party line. Wonder who it was who applied the pressure ? I doubt it was the PM or senior MoD politicians because they came out in favour of clearing the pilots eventually. Rifkind especially seemed aggrieved that he'd been played for a fool by senior officers. So, who got the ear-worms into D&W - was it CAS? or ACAS? Or Controller Aircraft and his side-kicks DGA2/1, or some faceless civil servant from the MoD/Foreign Office/T&I possibly driven by business execs from across the pond? Perhaps D&W will be fall-guys yet - unless they come clean before they go (doubtful)? There is a good book in there somewhere for conspiracy theorists.....

The motive is something which has troubled me too. Why did they need to invest so much capital is such an egregious cover up. An interesting snippet from the programme was Richard Cooks brother saying that when they were travelling to hear the findings ahead of their publication, his father had suggested that they should perhaps prepare themselves for the possibility that the pilots had made a mistake. Had the cover up confined itself to “simple” pilot error, the relatives might have, reluctantly accepted the finding. Gross negligence was so absurd, they knew it wasn’t right.
The programme didn’t really address the RTS issue and the motivations for that being signed either. The behaviours at the slightly more junior level don’t stand much scrutiny either.

I think the answer to motive is in Wratten’s character. I don’t know if it’s in the documentary but I remember the Paxman interview. Paxman pointed out the “no doubt whatsoever” requirement and Wratten replied,” Well, I am in no doubt whatsoever” . And to him, that was that.

I too was accused of gross negligence under his regime, but I was alive to fight it and “clear my name”

I have wondered if fear that any adverse technical findings would prevent government approval of the order for HC.3 which presumably was already in 1 Group's and Strike Command's plans, played a role. However, if so, I do wonder why they have never admitted their mistake - watched too much John Wayne? (Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness.)

Yep, very much agree with that observation. I don't think much if any pressure would have needed to have been applied from above to produce a finding of Gross negligence.

Possibly so, but why was Pilot error not sufficient for their purpose? Why did it have to be gross negligence?

“Pilot Error” was not one of the choices available. If it’s judged to be their fault the possible “verdicts”;were:
1. Error of judgement
2. Negligence to a minor degree
3. Negligence to a gross degree.

The relevant document had definitions of each but I can’t remember them . I believe there is a record somewhere of Wratten directing, prior to this event, that if an aircraft crashed it was because someone had been negligent, or words to that effect.

Flipster130 :-
I think that flipster has it about right. The aircraft captain was also the detachment commander and had pleaded that the task be allotted to the Mk1 Chinook. He (and others) clearly had great misgivings about the Mk2. It was one thing to risk their own lives in the Mk2 on operational tasks but this was completely different, a glorified jolly to Fort George for the cream of our security personnel to network and play a game or two of golf. The order stood to fly them in this troubled aircraft. Who confirmed it? Group, Command, higher? The ROs 'finding' was so over the top that it rather smacks of impressing their seniors rather than expressing their own thoughts. Why take such a reckless risk when the RAF High Command knew just how compromised the Mk2 was? Wanting to impress the Army in particular that the upgrade was in squadron service and available to them? We've had enough conspiracy theories in the original accident thread but at least now we know how grossly unairworthy the aircraft was and how the RAF/MoD has striven from the get-go to enforce a cover up.

Episode 1 was superb to my mind. The testimony of the families was humbling. Having lost husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, and then been blatantly lied to, they still demand to know why their loved ones died and are prepared to be interviewed and filmed 30 years after the tragedy to keep it in the public eye. BBC Central clearly thinks differently and confined it to their NI and Scotland regions for local consumption. Wishing to satisfy others? Certainly they would be in good company; Assistant Chief Constables, HM Coroners, HSE, Select Committees, QCs, all have avoided crossing lines in the sand and done their 'duty'.

Airworthiness, or rather the lack of it, is an arcane subject that has had to be sold hard to aviation professionals, never mind the poor bloody licence payer. So perhaps little mention of it here is hardly surprising. I've yet to view Part 2 but from others' comments it seems for 'Series 1' that's it. Let us hope that a Series 2 will follow and that the entire series be broadcast nationally. In the meantime, all the more reason to read David Hill's three Mull books to better understand the depths of this evil conspiracy. It is no less!