Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
360Vision -
I think the point Brian Dixon et al are trying to make is, there is no conclusive evidence that says that the crew were negligent. Therefore, they cannot be found to be negligent. That is set in stone. The original BOI did not find them to be negligent, neither did the Court in Scotland. There were enough questions about the ac such that the crash could have been caused by some technical malfunction. Equally, it could have been caused by pilot error. The point is, there is no evidence either way. You cannot find someone to be grossly negligent on no evidence. Johhny Wrotten can hypothesise all he likes, but it is not evidence, therefore his verdict is totally unjustified.
To answer your question "Does it really matter who is to blame" no-one will ever be able to prove conclusively who was to blame. And that means that Johnny Wrotten can not be allowed to continue to play fast and lose with the rules or the crew's reputations. This verdict must be overturned.
I think the point Brian Dixon et al are trying to make is, there is no conclusive evidence that says that the crew were negligent. Therefore, they cannot be found to be negligent. That is set in stone. The original BOI did not find them to be negligent, neither did the Court in Scotland. There were enough questions about the ac such that the crash could have been caused by some technical malfunction. Equally, it could have been caused by pilot error. The point is, there is no evidence either way. You cannot find someone to be grossly negligent on no evidence. Johhny Wrotten can hypothesise all he likes, but it is not evidence, therefore his verdict is totally unjustified.
To answer your question "Does it really matter who is to blame" no-one will ever be able to prove conclusively who was to blame. And that means that Johnny Wrotten can not be allowed to continue to play fast and lose with the rules or the crew's reputations. This verdict must be overturned.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks R O
Well put.
360vision, I wonder how your family would be feeling now had you been involved in this or any other accident, with YOU being found posthumously grossly negligent without a shred of evidence?
No, it doesn't matter who's to blame, and future Service BOIs will no longer apportion blame. The point is someone WAS blamed in this instance and any 'grown up' with more than a few degrees of vision, let alone 360, will want justice to prevail.
Well put.
360vision, I wonder how your family would be feeling now had you been involved in this or any other accident, with YOU being found posthumously grossly negligent without a shred of evidence?
No, it doesn't matter who's to blame, and future Service BOIs will no longer apportion blame. The point is someone WAS blamed in this instance and any 'grown up' with more than a few degrees of vision, let alone 360, will want justice to prevail.
Guest
Posts: n/a
360,
Yes, it damn well does matter who was to blame! Blaming the pilots was the easy way out for others up the chain of authorisation who undoubtedly contributed to this accident. Have you never heard of the flight safety chain?
If the military were so stretched and the weather so poor, why was this flight in an untried (actually it was tried and REJECTED by the test pilots) and partly unservicable aircraft with at least one major flight limitation not cancelled or postponed?
The passengers could easily have travelled by military or civil fixed wing, which would have been a far less risky option, even bearing in mind any potential for terrorist action against a high value target. Why were all the eggs put in one basket?
There are so many unanswered questions and stones unturned. Turn any one of them and you will see this was a management induced accident, whatever the final catalyst for the tragedy.
Blaming the crew conveniently put aside the requirement to look any further into the underlying errors.
Yes, it damn well does matter who was to blame! Blaming the pilots was the easy way out for others up the chain of authorisation who undoubtedly contributed to this accident. Have you never heard of the flight safety chain?
If the military were so stretched and the weather so poor, why was this flight in an untried (actually it was tried and REJECTED by the test pilots) and partly unservicable aircraft with at least one major flight limitation not cancelled or postponed?
The passengers could easily have travelled by military or civil fixed wing, which would have been a far less risky option, even bearing in mind any potential for terrorist action against a high value target. Why were all the eggs put in one basket?
There are so many unanswered questions and stones unturned. Turn any one of them and you will see this was a management induced accident, whatever the final catalyst for the tragedy.
Blaming the crew conveniently put aside the requirement to look any further into the underlying errors.
Guest
Posts: n/a
360,
Oh dear! Not a good start to your debate was it? I'm not going to resort to arguing as I respect that you're entitled to your opinion. However, I don't think you have sold yourself very well.
Why do you say 'it doesn't matter'? Are you not concerned that individuals were given no choice but to fly an unsuitable aircraft?
(It matters to me, and to many others by the way)
Are you not concerned that a VVIP cargo was placed on such an aircraft?
Does it not concern you that it may have been you and some of your other colleagues? (Not that I would wish this on anyone!) Who would campaign on your behalf?
Are you not concerned by the lack of support from senior officers?
Why do you not question the fact that despite reviewing all evidence available at the time, the BoI found no evidence to attribute blame to the pilots, yet two Air Marshals chose to ignore the findings of the Board?
For my part, as has been mentioned (Thank you R O Tree), I don't know what happened in the final moments. However, I firmly believe that the verdict of Gross Negligence is flawed. There is no evidence to support it. That is my campaign.
Question - Do you believe that Rick and Jon deliberately flew into the Mull? If not what is your point? If you do, where is your evidence?
As I say, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no problem with that, but I think a shrug of the shoulders has no place on this forum.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Oh dear! Not a good start to your debate was it? I'm not going to resort to arguing as I respect that you're entitled to your opinion. However, I don't think you have sold yourself very well.
Why do you say 'it doesn't matter'? Are you not concerned that individuals were given no choice but to fly an unsuitable aircraft?
(It matters to me, and to many others by the way)
Are you not concerned that a VVIP cargo was placed on such an aircraft?
Does it not concern you that it may have been you and some of your other colleagues? (Not that I would wish this on anyone!) Who would campaign on your behalf?
Are you not concerned by the lack of support from senior officers?
Why do you not question the fact that despite reviewing all evidence available at the time, the BoI found no evidence to attribute blame to the pilots, yet two Air Marshals chose to ignore the findings of the Board?
For my part, as has been mentioned (Thank you R O Tree), I don't know what happened in the final moments. However, I firmly believe that the verdict of Gross Negligence is flawed. There is no evidence to support it. That is my campaign.
Question - Do you believe that Rick and Jon deliberately flew into the Mull? If not what is your point? If you do, where is your evidence?
As I say, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no problem with that, but I think a shrug of the shoulders has no place on this forum.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone spotted the fact the shortly after the Mull crash the contents of an IRT was changed. IRE's were required to check a pilots' ability fly a low level IF abort.
It would appear that the air staff at gp were concerned that this aspect of pilot training had been overlooked. Those of us who have inadvertantly flown into IMC at lowlevel know that it is a very uncomfortable experience, especially when near rising ground. It is one thing to be nicely lined up on a runway and in your own time fly an IF departure it is a complete nightmare when you have to do it unexpectedly.
Over the sea, when visibility is poor it is difficult to be certain how far you can see. Are you able to see a mile or perhaps only half that distance, or even less? There is nothing to look at to help you gauge distance. There is every likelihood that the weather at the Mull was much worse than John and Rick realized.
About 30 secs before the crash a routine nav input was made. Almost certainly all was well at that stage. They then entered cloud, probably inadvertantly, and failed to complete a safe climb. It is possible that neither pilot had been in this situation before. There was no requirement to practise the manoeuvre during routine training. This skill gap has now been filled by the amended IRT.
The pilots could not have been found grossly negligent if they found themselves inadvertantly in a situation that was beyond their experience and training. I believe the staff at 1 Gp recognized the possibility that inadequate training was a major factor in the accident.
It would appear that the air staff at gp were concerned that this aspect of pilot training had been overlooked. Those of us who have inadvertantly flown into IMC at lowlevel know that it is a very uncomfortable experience, especially when near rising ground. It is one thing to be nicely lined up on a runway and in your own time fly an IF departure it is a complete nightmare when you have to do it unexpectedly.
Over the sea, when visibility is poor it is difficult to be certain how far you can see. Are you able to see a mile or perhaps only half that distance, or even less? There is nothing to look at to help you gauge distance. There is every likelihood that the weather at the Mull was much worse than John and Rick realized.
About 30 secs before the crash a routine nav input was made. Almost certainly all was well at that stage. They then entered cloud, probably inadvertantly, and failed to complete a safe climb. It is possible that neither pilot had been in this situation before. There was no requirement to practise the manoeuvre during routine training. This skill gap has now been filled by the amended IRT.
The pilots could not have been found grossly negligent if they found themselves inadvertantly in a situation that was beyond their experience and training. I believe the staff at 1 Gp recognized the possibility that inadequate training was a major factor in the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone asked "What the hell were top profile blokes (and I knew one of the Pongos) being transported in a Chinnok anyway?" Surely if the government had not pruned the comms squadrons so much they could have been transported in more suitable style. Cannot believe they put so many important people in such a vunerable aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian,
I am fairly new to this particular debate, however, I feel utter disgust at the way the two pilots were treated by our lords and masters. I wish you all the best with your campaign and will now keep a close eye on this thread. I read that the Mull of Kintyre Group is to have a meeting with Hoon on the 15th of this month, I think we will all be interested in the results of that.
You mentioned earlier the possibility of an email potition, but I did not see any more on that, have you had any joy setting this up?
Thankyou for your persistance in this matter
NFF
I am fairly new to this particular debate, however, I feel utter disgust at the way the two pilots were treated by our lords and masters. I wish you all the best with your campaign and will now keep a close eye on this thread. I read that the Mull of Kintyre Group is to have a meeting with Hoon on the 15th of this month, I think we will all be interested in the results of that.
You mentioned earlier the possibility of an email potition, but I did not see any more on that, have you had any joy setting this up?
Thankyou for your persistance in this matter
NFF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Retired and Senile,
Thanks for the posting. Are you arguing the fact that the senior officers should be held accountable as a result of vicarious liability? Also, be careful that you don't fall into the speculation as fact argument. We don't know if they entered cloud and failed to complete a safe climb. There may have been other issues involved.
bussy.
Again, thanks for the posting. The question has been asked on many occasions, and by people far better than I. As yet, no satisfactory answer has been offered.
NoFaultFound
Welcome also and thank you for your comments of support. As soon as I know the result of the meeting on the 15th, I will post it here. The e-petition is still in the early negotiating stages. I have to rely on help for that, as if you read back through the pages, you will see how useless I am with computers!!
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thanks for the posting. Are you arguing the fact that the senior officers should be held accountable as a result of vicarious liability? Also, be careful that you don't fall into the speculation as fact argument. We don't know if they entered cloud and failed to complete a safe climb. There may have been other issues involved.
bussy.
Again, thanks for the posting. The question has been asked on many occasions, and by people far better than I. As yet, no satisfactory answer has been offered.
NoFaultFound
Welcome also and thank you for your comments of support. As soon as I know the result of the meeting on the 15th, I will post it here. The e-petition is still in the early negotiating stages. I have to rely on help for that, as if you read back through the pages, you will see how useless I am with computers!!
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian & John
Just been listening to the news, interesting story about the bulk carrier The Derbyshire that went down 20 years ago with all hands. The first enquiry found the crew negligent a few years back, the families refused to accept this verdict and forced a new enquiry and today their loved ones were exonerated. A few interesting similarities in that they (the crew) were found guilty in their absence without irrefutable evidence. Their families have cleared their names by showing the type of tenacity a plain common sense that you are showing. The message is clear, don't give up.
Linked to this point is the fact that the families (of the Derbyshire)went through the courts. When you consider the findings of the BOI and the Fatal Accident Enquiry, both of which found no evidence to support a finding of Grossly Negigent against the crew of the Chinook I find it astounding that the govt can actually support the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls. Is it possible for you to approach the courts, in a civil action of some sort, to force the govt to take away the slur placed upon the crews names.
For those of you out there that believe this should be let lie, I believe that most of you (I know I would), would want your families and friends and colleagues to fight for you if there was any doubt about your guilt in any 'crime or misdemeanour'
Don't give up, many of us who still serve (and are proud to do so), are backing you.
Justice has to be fought for otherwise why do we do our jobs in the first place?
Just been listening to the news, interesting story about the bulk carrier The Derbyshire that went down 20 years ago with all hands. The first enquiry found the crew negligent a few years back, the families refused to accept this verdict and forced a new enquiry and today their loved ones were exonerated. A few interesting similarities in that they (the crew) were found guilty in their absence without irrefutable evidence. Their families have cleared their names by showing the type of tenacity a plain common sense that you are showing. The message is clear, don't give up.
Linked to this point is the fact that the families (of the Derbyshire)went through the courts. When you consider the findings of the BOI and the Fatal Accident Enquiry, both of which found no evidence to support a finding of Grossly Negigent against the crew of the Chinook I find it astounding that the govt can actually support the findings of the 2 Air Marshalls. Is it possible for you to approach the courts, in a civil action of some sort, to force the govt to take away the slur placed upon the crews names.
For those of you out there that believe this should be let lie, I believe that most of you (I know I would), would want your families and friends and colleagues to fight for you if there was any doubt about your guilt in any 'crime or misdemeanour'
Don't give up, many of us who still serve (and are proud to do so), are backing you.
Justice has to be fought for otherwise why do we do our jobs in the first place?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Retired and Senile
A great deal has been made of this waypoint change some 20 secs before impact. Indeed Wratten has now changed his original argument to state "the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change".
But what WAS the significance of the waypoint change? Some say it is evidence that all was well, some say it shows that the crew had the Mull visable and were proceeding to the next way point. But this supposes that we accept that the crew meant to select the next waypoint.
Stick with me on this. Just suppose there was some problem in the cockpit (IFF was almost in emergency mode). Perhaps someone was trying to select a diversion airfield on the TANS (they were programmed in to the system as waypoints) and hit the wrong button. Any fliers ever mis-podged a button in the heat of the moment before? Obviously this is mere speculation but -
The point is that we don't even know if the crew meant to select the next waypoint. Hence trying to determine the significance of an action we don't even know was intended is somewhat difficult.
This is the crux of this issue. All the theories and reconstructions are mere guesswork. And a guess is really not grounds enough to condemn two men of manslaughter.
A great deal has been made of this waypoint change some 20 secs before impact. Indeed Wratten has now changed his original argument to state "the act of negligence occured before the waypoint change".
But what WAS the significance of the waypoint change? Some say it is evidence that all was well, some say it shows that the crew had the Mull visable and were proceeding to the next way point. But this supposes that we accept that the crew meant to select the next waypoint.
Stick with me on this. Just suppose there was some problem in the cockpit (IFF was almost in emergency mode). Perhaps someone was trying to select a diversion airfield on the TANS (they were programmed in to the system as waypoints) and hit the wrong button. Any fliers ever mis-podged a button in the heat of the moment before? Obviously this is mere speculation but -
The point is that we don't even know if the crew meant to select the next waypoint. Hence trying to determine the significance of an action we don't even know was intended is somewhat difficult.
This is the crux of this issue. All the theories and reconstructions are mere guesswork. And a guess is really not grounds enough to condemn two men of manslaughter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Psyclic,
Thanks, I was aware of that but many aren't. One reason for my question "why could they not have gone fixed wing or even civvy"
The presence of R & R material in the wreckage has been held against the crew i.e. to "back up" the supposition that they had a casual attitude to the flight.
This goes against the pilots' actual recorded pre-flight concerns.
Thanks, I was aware of that but many aren't. One reason for my question "why could they not have gone fixed wing or even civvy"
The presence of R & R material in the wreckage has been held against the crew i.e. to "back up" the supposition that they had a casual attitude to the flight.
This goes against the pilots' actual recorded pre-flight concerns.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice to see renewed interest and some new posters on this subject.
John, it is interesting that Wratten moves the goal posts to suit his arguement. As you point out, the Way point change could mean any number of things, which are only clear in Wratten's crystal ball. Has it ever been discussed/proven which mode the TANS was in? (I haven't seen the BOI report). From my Sea King days I think that in the 'route' mode waypoint change was automatic within about a mile of the waypoint being steered to (to account for corner cutting). Maybe the crew didn't even do it. (any RNS232 users out there?)
Of course the main point of this is that we speculate. With no evidence that's all we can do. More crucially, that's all Wratten and Day could do. Hardly a case proven 'with no doubt whatsoever'.
Meanwhile in the Commons debate on Defence and the Armed Forces, 1 November 2000 the MOD sticks by its 'hypothesis as fact' stance. I quote an unknown minister (page photocopied by my MP doesn't include speakers name) - 'We believe that flying too fast, too low and into fog is negligence. Frankly, various other details that are put forward do not change that fundamental point.' Head firmly in sand there then.
The argument that the pax should have been transferred by a more suitable means is, of course, an obvious one. The accident could have happened to an aircraft with no pax on board. If the resulting verdict depends on the importance of the cargo, the that is indeed bizarre, as the cause cannot be affected by the outcome, can it?
We Will Win This
John, it is interesting that Wratten moves the goal posts to suit his arguement. As you point out, the Way point change could mean any number of things, which are only clear in Wratten's crystal ball. Has it ever been discussed/proven which mode the TANS was in? (I haven't seen the BOI report). From my Sea King days I think that in the 'route' mode waypoint change was automatic within about a mile of the waypoint being steered to (to account for corner cutting). Maybe the crew didn't even do it. (any RNS232 users out there?)
Of course the main point of this is that we speculate. With no evidence that's all we can do. More crucially, that's all Wratten and Day could do. Hardly a case proven 'with no doubt whatsoever'.
Meanwhile in the Commons debate on Defence and the Armed Forces, 1 November 2000 the MOD sticks by its 'hypothesis as fact' stance. I quote an unknown minister (page photocopied by my MP doesn't include speakers name) - 'We believe that flying too fast, too low and into fog is negligence. Frankly, various other details that are put forward do not change that fundamental point.' Head firmly in sand there then.
The argument that the pax should have been transferred by a more suitable means is, of course, an obvious one. The accident could have happened to an aircraft with no pax on board. If the resulting verdict depends on the importance of the cargo, the that is indeed bizarre, as the cause cannot be affected by the outcome, can it?
We Will Win This
Guest
Posts: n/a
Desperado,
an interesting point, thank you.
I have a feeling that too much time has passed for the majority of court appeals. Cost is also prohibitive.
At the moment (amongst other things) I'm looking at Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988. This is the article governing the right to a fair trial.
However, I'll wait to see the outcome of the meeting between the Mull of Kintyre Group and Minister Hoon before making the next move.
Thanks for your support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
an interesting point, thank you.
I have a feeling that too much time has passed for the majority of court appeals. Cost is also prohibitive.
At the moment (amongst other things) I'm looking at Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988. This is the article governing the right to a fair trial.
However, I'll wait to see the outcome of the meeting between the Mull of Kintyre Group and Minister Hoon before making the next move.
Thanks for your support.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
This would be an extremely interesting thread except for two reasons:
1) There is no explanation of the problem and only those individuals that are familiar with the incident and the cast of chatacters have some level of understanding. Since this is a helicopter related problem is a description of the incident and the report from the Board Of Investigation either buried in the Rotorheads forum or, is it available on the internet.
2) The terminology is pure British and it limits the understanding of somone living on the Western end of the big pond.
Can someone summarize the incident and the findings or at least point me in the right direction.
Thank you very much. Hopefully nobody is offended by my words.
------------------
The Cat
1) There is no explanation of the problem and only those individuals that are familiar with the incident and the cast of chatacters have some level of understanding. Since this is a helicopter related problem is a description of the incident and the report from the Board Of Investigation either buried in the Rotorheads forum or, is it available on the internet.
2) The terminology is pure British and it limits the understanding of somone living on the Western end of the big pond.
Can someone summarize the incident and the findings or at least point me in the right direction.
Thank you very much. Hopefully nobody is offended by my words.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian Dixon, John Nichol & Ark Royal
I accept wholeheartedly that no-one knows the definite cause of the accident. My belief is that, with a high probability, the accident was caused by Human Factors, a PC way of saying pilot error. That is not to say that the pilots were negligent. All aircrew have at some time in their careers been guilty of pilot error, except me of course! (j for joke) but few have been guilty of negligence. The window of opportunity for a technical malfunction to have caused the crash is extremely narrow, less than 30 secs. There was no post crash evidence of a malfunction. Anything transitory, apart from a control problem, should not have caused the accident. I think the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed.
John, the IFF almost selected to emergency is a bit of a red herring. If the crew had wanted to squawk emergency they would have pushed the IFF control knob and rotated it fully clockwise to the EMERG selection rather than attempt to fiddle with the most ergonomically inadequate selectors in the aircraft.
"Johnny Rotten" wrote an article in the RAeS house mag in which he used the analogy of a car driver driving at an excessive speed in fog and driving into an obstuction to illustrate the reason why he felt the Chinook pilots were negligent. That analogy is flawed. I believe that it was perfectly possible for the crew not to have realized how bad the weather was until they either inadvertantly or unavoidably entered cloud. Over the sea you don't have the visual cues to enable you to make an accurate assessment of the visibility. Also, it is perfectly legal for a helicopter to fly VFR below 3000 ft, at 140 kts IAS whilst remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the crew were not complying with those requirements. If that were the case how on earth can they be found to be negligent up to the point they entered cloud, which they surely did?
Having entered cloud they did not climb steeply enough to miss the high terain ahead. The reason for this we will never know. IF aborts from low level at high speed were manoeuvres talked about but rarely practised. Until the new simulator opened at Benson it was impossible to practise an inadvertant entry into cloud at low level. I have done it for real 3 or 4 times in a long career and found myself working hard in the initial stages until my scan settled down. It is very possible that neither John nor Rick had been in such a situation before. Maybe they just did not raise the nose enough to cope with the high groundspeed and the rising ground ahead. If that were the case they were not negligent they just made a mistake which unfortunately had disasterous consequences. I believe this possibility was recognized by 1 Group and they introduced the change to the IRT to fill the skill gap as best they could.
Unfortunately John and Rick are victims of a miscarriage of justice brought about by the ethos of blame and the pig-headedness of senior officers.
I accept wholeheartedly that no-one knows the definite cause of the accident. My belief is that, with a high probability, the accident was caused by Human Factors, a PC way of saying pilot error. That is not to say that the pilots were negligent. All aircrew have at some time in their careers been guilty of pilot error, except me of course! (j for joke) but few have been guilty of negligence. The window of opportunity for a technical malfunction to have caused the crash is extremely narrow, less than 30 secs. There was no post crash evidence of a malfunction. Anything transitory, apart from a control problem, should not have caused the accident. I think the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed.
John, the IFF almost selected to emergency is a bit of a red herring. If the crew had wanted to squawk emergency they would have pushed the IFF control knob and rotated it fully clockwise to the EMERG selection rather than attempt to fiddle with the most ergonomically inadequate selectors in the aircraft.
"Johnny Rotten" wrote an article in the RAeS house mag in which he used the analogy of a car driver driving at an excessive speed in fog and driving into an obstuction to illustrate the reason why he felt the Chinook pilots were negligent. That analogy is flawed. I believe that it was perfectly possible for the crew not to have realized how bad the weather was until they either inadvertantly or unavoidably entered cloud. Over the sea you don't have the visual cues to enable you to make an accurate assessment of the visibility. Also, it is perfectly legal for a helicopter to fly VFR below 3000 ft, at 140 kts IAS whilst remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the crew were not complying with those requirements. If that were the case how on earth can they be found to be negligent up to the point they entered cloud, which they surely did?
Having entered cloud they did not climb steeply enough to miss the high terain ahead. The reason for this we will never know. IF aborts from low level at high speed were manoeuvres talked about but rarely practised. Until the new simulator opened at Benson it was impossible to practise an inadvertant entry into cloud at low level. I have done it for real 3 or 4 times in a long career and found myself working hard in the initial stages until my scan settled down. It is very possible that neither John nor Rick had been in such a situation before. Maybe they just did not raise the nose enough to cope with the high groundspeed and the rising ground ahead. If that were the case they were not negligent they just made a mistake which unfortunately had disasterous consequences. I believe this possibility was recognized by 1 Group and they introduced the change to the IRT to fill the skill gap as best they could.
Unfortunately John and Rick are victims of a miscarriage of justice brought about by the ethos of blame and the pig-headedness of senior officers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
R&S, You make some valid and thoughtful points. I accept that the normal action would be to select emegency on the IFF rotary knob but it is somewhat strange that the rotary digits were 2 clicks from emergency.
Your theory of climb into cloud is as valid as any other theory put forward but at least, unlike Wratten & Co, you have the decency to admit that it is only a theory.
Finally, I concur with your observation that there was a miscariage of justice!
Your theory of climb into cloud is as valid as any other theory put forward but at least, unlike Wratten & Co, you have the decency to admit that it is only a theory.
Finally, I concur with your observation that there was a miscariage of justice!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Psyclic - good point. R&R or just a jolly to say goodbye to a retiring member.
360 - If it 'doesn't matter', don't expect any support if it happens to you.
Retired & Senile. I agree with you; It probably was aircrew error. HOWEVER, Wratten never proved that beyond reasonable doubt and this is the whole argument as far as John Cook is concerned.
Gross Negligence - the only negligence is on behalf of Wratten.
Smoothie
[This message has been edited by smooth approach (edited 10 November 2000).]
360 - If it 'doesn't matter', don't expect any support if it happens to you.
Retired & Senile. I agree with you; It probably was aircrew error. HOWEVER, Wratten never proved that beyond reasonable doubt and this is the whole argument as far as John Cook is concerned.
Gross Negligence - the only negligence is on behalf of Wratten.
Smoothie
[This message has been edited by smooth approach (edited 10 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
RO Tiree
I don't have access to a BINA but from memory the requirement to squawk EMERG only applies when you will be forced into Controlled Airspace during an IF abort. Even if that is not the case the first priority during any abort is to fly the aircraft. Once that has been achieved then less urgent actions can be completed. Unfortunately the first priority in the case of the Chinook was never achieved and I guess the boys did not have time to sort out the radio etc before the crash.
Essentially, I believe there are too many uncertainties, too many unanswered questions for there to be incontrovertable evidence that the pilots were negligent. As deceased aircrew the Flight Safety manual required that they should not be found to have been negligent. Until AM's Wratten and Day can produce that incontrovertable evidence they should withdraw the slur on the characters of 2 highly conscientious pilots who are unable to defend themselves.
I don't have access to a BINA but from memory the requirement to squawk EMERG only applies when you will be forced into Controlled Airspace during an IF abort. Even if that is not the case the first priority during any abort is to fly the aircraft. Once that has been achieved then less urgent actions can be completed. Unfortunately the first priority in the case of the Chinook was never achieved and I guess the boys did not have time to sort out the radio etc before the crash.
Essentially, I believe there are too many uncertainties, too many unanswered questions for there to be incontrovertable evidence that the pilots were negligent. As deceased aircrew the Flight Safety manual required that they should not be found to have been negligent. Until AM's Wratten and Day can produce that incontrovertable evidence they should withdraw the slur on the characters of 2 highly conscientious pilots who are unable to defend themselves.