Chinook Justice
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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>
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>
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
<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
Just a numbered other
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>
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>
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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.)
