Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Chinook Justice

Old 11th Feb 2002, 15:15
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Red face

Percy. Can you not have an opinion without making yourself look a prat?

Have a look at the HoL report. Of the witnesses, of the hearing - everything. These learned Lords have made a decision that effectively overturns the the "gross negligence" label placed upon the two pilots by DAY and WRATTEN - THAT is the point of this.

Do us all a favour and get your facts right before you post. Who cares what Stewart Birt thinks or comes up with. It's done! The pilots were unjustly treated and it has to be put right.

If you cannot see that, or won't see it, then you are deliberately wearing blinkers. Or maybe you work for the MOD!

[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: UncleTomCobbly ]</p>
TomPierce is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2002, 18:43
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Post

Does one begin to suspect that Percy and Bill W are one and the same? Both have the appearance of wearing blinkers, neither is capable of seeing what is in front of them, both are determined beyond anything else to blacken the names of two pilots just to save the face of Their Airships.
HugMonster is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2002, 19:45
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 101
Post

I'm delighted with the Lord's ruling.

The inquiry didn't find that the pilots were negligent. It couldn't, because there was no definite evidence for that. It was their Airships who appended that appalling judgement.

Yes, we can all ask why the pilots were flying so low in such conditions, but since we don't know the answer and never will, there's no justification for sticking "gross negligence" on the report. The FADEC has been a red herring throughout the argument, but if that's what it takes to right a wrong.................!

This judgement was the "peacetime" RAF at its worst. Arsecovering is the motive. I'm delighted to see Their Airships' arses kicked, and would like to believe that their successors will think twice in future before they stick damning labels on people who cannot answer back.

SF
shortfinals is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2002, 22:25
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Post

Stewart Birt says in The Times "No conceivable mechanical failure nor any deficiency in onboard systems or equipment would have reproduced this accident". Perhaps he should have a word with Sqn Ldr Robert Burke, who gave evidence to the House of Lords, having had personal experience of a number of technical problems including control jams and DASH runaways, both of which could have been responsible for such an accident.

At least he has the decency to declare an interest, claiming to have been at least partially responsible for training Jon Tapper and Rick Cook, not to mention running a company with lucrative military contracts. Brown-nosing or @rse-covering? Or both? Who cares.

Nothing that he says detracts from the point that there is no evidence of negligence. Next please.
Chocks Wahay is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2002, 01:15
  #65 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Post

Hi all,. .here's a link to an article written by Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Defence 1992 - 1995.

<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/22195" target="_blank">http://www.sundayherald.com/22195</a>

Interesting read.. .Regards as always. .Brian. ."Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2002, 17:53
  #66 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
fish

If only Bliar and Hoon had a tenth of Mr Rifkind's integrity.

To admit he was wrong took courage, and his letter will help the cause no end.

He says, however 'I have the greatest respect for the RAF and for the Ministry of Defence. Those who work there, including the two air-marshals (who are now retired),'

Does he know something about the possible future CAS that we don't? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

And Percy, your blinkers provide such limited vision that you missed the letter printed immediately before Mr Birt's. Lord Jacobs's letter deserves a look too

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-44-204811,00.html" target="_blank">Lord Jacob's letter</a>

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

edited for incorrect URL

[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]</p>
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2002, 01:38
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 18
Post

I feel I have to enter the debate. I have been very close to quite a few RAF Boards of Inquiry and it seems that to some the procedure is not clear. The Inquiry is NOT a court of law and does not concern itself with punishment or guilt, simply finding the cause of an accident (as many of you will know, not always so simple!).

The rules and procedures for the conduct of such an inquiry are laid down in AP3207 (The Manual of Flight Safety) Chapter 8. I have quoted from it below (at least the version that was extant in 1994), so that there is no doubt whatsoever what it says:

"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent."

Now, if just ONE person has any doubt it seems to me that there is doubt; when experts like the AAIB investigators have a doubt then it seems pretty straight forward, not to mention a whole BOI had some doubt (up to the point where the AMs got involved)!

How and why these two pilots were found negligent under those rules has always escaped me.

I hope the MOD see sense and listen to the Lords. (By the way, unless someone can tell me otherwise, I am fairly certain that the finding of the BOI will not affect the pensions afforded to the deceased pilots relatives.)
av8er is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.