Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Paxman did very well, something which comes with difficulty out of my mouth. I am a mere recent addition to the ranks of qualified pilots, but the level of stubbornness on this issue astounds me. I haven't seen much of the Air Force yet, but I sincerely hope that every time people make a mistake with a decision, they won't always be so ridiculous arrogant, instead of just admitting their error.
I think an obseqious apology needs to be winging it's way to the families of all the deceased!
I think an obseqious apology needs to be winging it's way to the families of all the deceased!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sure Andy Pulford is going to be really happy with being refered to as a "junior officer". It would be interesting to see who is the more experienced Chinook pilot - Pulford or Wratten. I think we all know the answer to that.
It is a long time since I have seen Wratten speak. That sly grin and smug attitude said more about him than he will ever know. I'm sure he thinks he gave a good account of himself, what a sad, deluded and lonely man he is. I wonder how long his high paid consultancy is going to last? Still, I'll always buy a copy of "Big Issue" from him.
It is a long time since I have seen Wratten speak. That sly grin and smug attitude said more about him than he will ever know. I'm sure he thinks he gave a good account of himself, what a sad, deluded and lonely man he is. I wonder how long his high paid consultancy is going to last? Still, I'll always buy a copy of "Big Issue" from him.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've just watched Wratten being interviewed by Paxman.
Well done, Johnny Rotten, you've just done more harm to aircrew recruitment than anybody else in the last few years. Paxman described your attitude as arrogant - you should watch the video of your interview. You have probably caused several PVRs tonight - not that it matters with your pension and your spare wodge from Rolls Royce, you don't care!
It is heartbreaking the way you complain that the Scottish enquiry is flawed because they didn't call you to give evidence, but your own inquiry, that lacked the vital evidence from Cook and Tapper is okay. Many people will be surprised to find that the operational RAF is run on a daily basis by 'junior' officers - people like Ed Gilday, Roger Wedge, Andy Pulford - who have thousands of hours of helicopter flying and who know their subject. It seems that to be a Group Captain and to have commanded a front-line helicopter squadron and flying base is not sufficient to make a decision on the merits of a Board of Enquiry. Only a fast jet Air Officer is qualified to comment!
Judicial opinion doesn't count in the eyes of Day and Wratten and Hoon. They keep talking about their idle speculation as 'facts' when everyone who has an O-level (GCSE) in English can spot the difference! The facts cannot support the decision that anybody was grossly negligent of anything.
I've over 1000 rotary hours, 2 degrees in law and no axe to grind about the introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 into service. I've read the report up until the time that the 'senior' officers become involved and I'm afraid that I find the whole of Wratten's arguments to Jeremy Paxman flawed.
What disturbs me is the way that Hoon seems to be able to defend the position of the ACMs against reasoned argument from the PAC. He denies that he is favouring the 2 ACMs over Parliament, but I'm afraid that that is the way that it comes over. It seems that you can be supported by MPs, Judges, Peers, PPrune (as per the TV report) and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, but when Johnny Rotten makes a decision based on idle speculation, than the Secretary of State for Defence of the 4th richest nation on Earth is in awe.
Tomorrow I'll be contacting my MP, I presume everyone else will be contacting theirs!
[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 30 November 2000).]
Well done, Johnny Rotten, you've just done more harm to aircrew recruitment than anybody else in the last few years. Paxman described your attitude as arrogant - you should watch the video of your interview. You have probably caused several PVRs tonight - not that it matters with your pension and your spare wodge from Rolls Royce, you don't care!
It is heartbreaking the way you complain that the Scottish enquiry is flawed because they didn't call you to give evidence, but your own inquiry, that lacked the vital evidence from Cook and Tapper is okay. Many people will be surprised to find that the operational RAF is run on a daily basis by 'junior' officers - people like Ed Gilday, Roger Wedge, Andy Pulford - who have thousands of hours of helicopter flying and who know their subject. It seems that to be a Group Captain and to have commanded a front-line helicopter squadron and flying base is not sufficient to make a decision on the merits of a Board of Enquiry. Only a fast jet Air Officer is qualified to comment!
Judicial opinion doesn't count in the eyes of Day and Wratten and Hoon. They keep talking about their idle speculation as 'facts' when everyone who has an O-level (GCSE) in English can spot the difference! The facts cannot support the decision that anybody was grossly negligent of anything.
I've over 1000 rotary hours, 2 degrees in law and no axe to grind about the introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 into service. I've read the report up until the time that the 'senior' officers become involved and I'm afraid that I find the whole of Wratten's arguments to Jeremy Paxman flawed.
What disturbs me is the way that Hoon seems to be able to defend the position of the ACMs against reasoned argument from the PAC. He denies that he is favouring the 2 ACMs over Parliament, but I'm afraid that that is the way that it comes over. It seems that you can be supported by MPs, Judges, Peers, PPrune (as per the TV report) and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, but when Johnny Rotten makes a decision based on idle speculation, than the Secretary of State for Defence of the 4th richest nation on Earth is in awe.
Tomorrow I'll be contacting my MP, I presume everyone else will be contacting theirs!
[This message has been edited by Paul Wesson (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Watching his airship's performance, I was reminded of:
... "This is achieved in two ways: firstly, as we have seen, by projecting their undesirable characteristics on to others; secondly, by nurturing an impeccable and idealized, if wholly false, image of themselves. Like the prejudiced Southern white who projects his repressed sexual wishes onto Negroes, or the latent homosexual or voyeur who devotes his or her life to advocating harsher punishment for homosexuals or pornographers, the life-style of the authoritarian personality is one of finding and prosecuting in others what he has come to fear in himself. This example of attack, being the surest method of defence, would be incomplete, however, if the individual did not also entertain a highly idealized image of himself. (It is this combination of transparent if unconscious hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction that makes such people particularly insufferable.)
"These tortuous machinations of the authoritarian mind ramify yet further. Beacause he has to deny his own shortcomings, he dare not look inwards. He is fearful of insight, and strenuously avoids questioning his own motives. By the same token, he cannot allow his extra-punitive defences to be threatened by humane considerations for the objects of his hostility... a price is paid - one which can prove crippling to the human mind. In the place of free-ranging, creative and inventive thought, an authoritarian's thinking is confined to rigid formulae and inflexible attitudes. He is intolerant of unusual ideas and unable to cope with contradictions."
Prof. Norman F. Dixon: On the Psychology of Military Incompetence - Authoritarianism.
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]
... "This is achieved in two ways: firstly, as we have seen, by projecting their undesirable characteristics on to others; secondly, by nurturing an impeccable and idealized, if wholly false, image of themselves. Like the prejudiced Southern white who projects his repressed sexual wishes onto Negroes, or the latent homosexual or voyeur who devotes his or her life to advocating harsher punishment for homosexuals or pornographers, the life-style of the authoritarian personality is one of finding and prosecuting in others what he has come to fear in himself. This example of attack, being the surest method of defence, would be incomplete, however, if the individual did not also entertain a highly idealized image of himself. (It is this combination of transparent if unconscious hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction that makes such people particularly insufferable.)
"These tortuous machinations of the authoritarian mind ramify yet further. Beacause he has to deny his own shortcomings, he dare not look inwards. He is fearful of insight, and strenuously avoids questioning his own motives. By the same token, he cannot allow his extra-punitive defences to be threatened by humane considerations for the objects of his hostility... a price is paid - one which can prove crippling to the human mind. In the place of free-ranging, creative and inventive thought, an authoritarian's thinking is confined to rigid formulae and inflexible attitudes. He is intolerant of unusual ideas and unable to cope with contradictions."
Prof. Norman F. Dixon: On the Psychology of Military Incompetence - Authoritarianism.
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have never seen anything like it! Am I missing something really obvious here because Wrotten an the Sec State seemed completely blind to what was being said. From what I have seen, only two members of the BOI thought the pilots at fault, and they where the two Air Marshalls.
What is the government and the MoD affraid of. Has no one within the senior ranks of the military or government got the balls to say "sorry, we were wrong"
I am so angry at what I have just heard on Newsnight. Arrogance is too small a word for this government. They only deserve our contempt!
What is the government and the MoD affraid of. Has no one within the senior ranks of the military or government got the balls to say "sorry, we were wrong"
I am so angry at what I have just heard on Newsnight. Arrogance is too small a word for this government. They only deserve our contempt!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good to see Paxman getting stuck in. The old burden of proof reared it's ugly head, along with the phrase '....it has changed since the accident'. Can any one enlighten me as to what has changed and how this affects us still driving HM's ac? The missus was watching, baby in one hand and jaw on the floor, asking 'what if' questions of me and how it could, God forbid, affect her if anything untoward should happen to me.
What have been the effects on the realtives of the front enders, other than bereavement and the fact that the RAF has besmirched their otherwise good names and records? I heard rumours that a finding of gross negligence affected widows pensions etc. Is this the case or an apocryphal (excuse sp) story?
I am shocked thatit has gone this far. What possible cause has the Govt to prove by continuing with this facade? I knew all 4 crew to talk to, and feel strongly for those relatives trying to clear their names.
I too am prepared to put pen to paper over this.
What have been the effects on the realtives of the front enders, other than bereavement and the fact that the RAF has besmirched their otherwise good names and records? I heard rumours that a finding of gross negligence affected widows pensions etc. Is this the case or an apocryphal (excuse sp) story?
I am shocked thatit has gone this far. What possible cause has the Govt to prove by continuing with this facade? I knew all 4 crew to talk to, and feel strongly for those relatives trying to clear their names.
I too am prepared to put pen to paper over this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is my first contribution to this particular thread although as a current SH pilot, I’ve been following it with interest from the start. While it was nice to see PPRuNe get a mention on Newsnight this evening, it was a pity that Jeremy Paxman wasn’t able to pick up on a few of the ‘inaccuracies’ that both Wrotten and BuffHoon came out with.
As far as I’m aware, neither Wrotten nor Day were actually part of the Board of Inquiry, but merely reviewed the findings on completion. (Apologies if this is wrong, but I’m not RAF) Buff kept referring to the two Airships as having been part of the BoI and intimately involved with its’ findings which, as far as I understand, wasn’t how it happened.
I was outraged by the way that Wrotten dismissed the BoI members as “young and not sufficiently experienced” to make an accurate judgement of the cause of the crash. I don’t know who sat on the BoI, but I know that they would have been experienced SH operators and to have their experience questioned and ignored by a man who wasn’t even a helicopter pilot is ludicrous!
Wrotten appeared to get a bit offended (shame!) when Paxman suggested that he might have had a conflict of interest as both reviewing officer for the BoI and the officer overseeing the introduction of the Mk2 Chinook into service. He then came out with the immortal comment that people shouldn’t make accusations about individuals without conclusive proof!! Why not, you did!!
It was also a great pity that JP didn’t have the facts to hand when Wrotten came out with the excuse that it must have been negligence because the crew didn’t climb above Safety Altitude. I would have enjoyed seeing the expression if JP had pointed out that the aircraft icing limits didn’t actually give the crew that option!
At the end of the day, it was good to see Wrotten wriggling, but I’d like to have seen Buff nailed to the wall a bit more...now there’s an idea...where’s my dartboard!
As far as I’m aware, neither Wrotten nor Day were actually part of the Board of Inquiry, but merely reviewed the findings on completion. (Apologies if this is wrong, but I’m not RAF) Buff kept referring to the two Airships as having been part of the BoI and intimately involved with its’ findings which, as far as I understand, wasn’t how it happened.
I was outraged by the way that Wrotten dismissed the BoI members as “young and not sufficiently experienced” to make an accurate judgement of the cause of the crash. I don’t know who sat on the BoI, but I know that they would have been experienced SH operators and to have their experience questioned and ignored by a man who wasn’t even a helicopter pilot is ludicrous!
Wrotten appeared to get a bit offended (shame!) when Paxman suggested that he might have had a conflict of interest as both reviewing officer for the BoI and the officer overseeing the introduction of the Mk2 Chinook into service. He then came out with the immortal comment that people shouldn’t make accusations about individuals without conclusive proof!! Why not, you did!!
It was also a great pity that JP didn’t have the facts to hand when Wrotten came out with the excuse that it must have been negligence because the crew didn’t climb above Safety Altitude. I would have enjoyed seeing the expression if JP had pointed out that the aircraft icing limits didn’t actually give the crew that option!
At the end of the day, it was good to see Wrotten wriggling, but I’d like to have seen Buff nailed to the wall a bit more...now there’s an idea...where’s my dartboard!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just watched NewsNight and read Forum messages.
It seems as if might be some unknown knowledge known by the RAF on this event.
I am sure the RAF know more than is said because why is there not full reports made avail from the RAF, it is not as if any info is of a sensitive nature unless it is ??
Has there been any analysis done of mobile phone calls made by the passengers during the flight. If damages have been paid to a passenger victim then there must have been more than doubt on issue of crash.
I have no details of events above but I have
always thought it was likely that passenger communication on the flight was used and if so there will be cell beacon records which can be used for trig plotting of positions ??
Also did any of the passengers have handheld GPS devices which where investigated ??
Thoughts
[This message has been edited by colinj (edited 01 December 2000).]
It seems as if might be some unknown knowledge known by the RAF on this event.
I am sure the RAF know more than is said because why is there not full reports made avail from the RAF, it is not as if any info is of a sensitive nature unless it is ??
Has there been any analysis done of mobile phone calls made by the passengers during the flight. If damages have been paid to a passenger victim then there must have been more than doubt on issue of crash.
I have no details of events above but I have
always thought it was likely that passenger communication on the flight was used and if so there will be cell beacon records which can be used for trig plotting of positions ??
Also did any of the passengers have handheld GPS devices which where investigated ??
Thoughts
[This message has been edited by colinj (edited 01 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I cannot understand why Spellar, Hoon and Wratten will not answer the very simple questions put to them. Basically, was there overwhelming proof positive that the cause of the accident could be determined beyond all reasonable doubt? Or was there insufficient proof for such a verdict and consequently a lingering element of doubt as would seem to be the learned opinion of a court senior in all respects to the BoI? If there is the slightest remaining doubt, then even by its own standards the BoI verdict cannot be upheld in a democracy.
Blair seems more interested in furthering his tawdry crusade of encouraging unnatural sex with children, Spellar and Hoon are losing their government thousands of votes. Feelings amongst those serving are running very high; this sordid business will hardly act as either a recruiting or retention incentive, but why is it apparently so difficult for the government to accept overwhelming opinion that the Chinook BoI verdict is unsustainable? Nothing to do with the possibility that the MoD could perhaps face huge compensation claims by the relatives of the survivors if the absolute cause of the accident was Not Positively Determined?
Blair seems more interested in furthering his tawdry crusade of encouraging unnatural sex with children, Spellar and Hoon are losing their government thousands of votes. Feelings amongst those serving are running very high; this sordid business will hardly act as either a recruiting or retention incentive, but why is it apparently so difficult for the government to accept overwhelming opinion that the Chinook BoI verdict is unsustainable? Nothing to do with the possibility that the MoD could perhaps face huge compensation claims by the relatives of the survivors if the absolute cause of the accident was Not Positively Determined?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Scotsman (Top Story) 1 Dec 00
A decision beyond belief
TONY Blair was last night accused of a cover-up and of betraying the armed forces after he dismissed demands for a fresh inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster.
Relatives and campaigners said the government’s attitude was "beyond belief" as ministers insisted there was no new evidence in a Commons report into the crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
The report by the public accounts committee accused the Ministry of Defence of "unwarrantable arrogance" for refusing to overturn its decision to blame the accident on the two dead pilots, Flt Lts Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook. The four air crew and 25 senior Northern Ireland intelligence officers on board were killed when the helicopter crashed into a hill on 2 June, 1994.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, infuriated relatives and campaigners when he said he was unable to take the report seriously. Downing Street backed Mr Hoon and said there were no grounds for a review.
Flt Lt Tapper’s father, Mike, said: "It is incredible to think of the language used to attack the public accounts committee; it is beyond belief. To describe their report as superficial is irrational. Mr Hoon and his officials are no longer talking sense."
Susan Phoenix, whose husband Ian, a counter-intelligence expert with the RUC, was killed in the crash, joined the protests over the MoD’s refusal to drop the charge of pilot error against the two pilots. She accused the MoD of "arrogance" in its handling of the affair and its response to the public accounts committee’s report.
Dr Phoenix said: "All we need is someone with a little bit of confidence and bravery in the MoD to say, ‘Look a mistake was made. In the light of this new evidence, we have to consider the finding and we will officially set aside the finding of crude negligence’.
"We must remember on a special forces flight there are four crew members. There were two pilots and two air load masters who were all highly-qualified young men. They were not going to fly that Chinook into the side of a mountain without doing something."
Captain John Cook, Rick’s father, said: "I thought it was game, set and match to us, but since hearing what the secretary of state had to say, I’m angry. That’s a total insult to the public accounts committee and an insult to us and everybody who’s fighting for the boys."
He added: "I’ve had RAF wives coming up to me and saying: ‘Please stay with it. We’re right behind you. It might be us one day.’"
The government’s failure to act was a betrayal of all those in the armed forces who risked their lives for their country, said Capt Cook.
He added: "We have listened to their [the MoD’s] lies and distortions for six years. They are the accusers and they have no evidence and yet they have the nerve to turn around and ask us for evidence. If they had not blamed the pilots don’t you think that you and the House of Commons and everyone else would be asking questions?"
Lord Chalfont, the chairman of the cross-party Mull of Kintyre group and a former Labour defence minister, was also astounded by Mr Hoon’s response and said the government had "lost the plot" if it thought the committee’s report was superficial.
Despite Mr Blair’s comments, he would be writing to him today to demand a meeting with representatives from the group. Lord Chalfont is also pressing for a select committee of peers to be set up to review the MoD’s verdict of pilot error.
Tory MP Robert Key, a former defence minister, said the group was making some progress. He pointed to the publication yesterday of a 1987 on Aircraft Accident Investigation Procedures in the Armed Services which states that "it’s not the purpose (of boards of inquiry) to apportion blame or responsibility".
He said the MoD’s insistance that the dead pilots were to blame had affected morale among service personnel who were concerned that they too could be posthumously blamed for an accident.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Tory defence secretary at the time of the crash, said evidence casting doubt on the verdict had emerged since the inquiry was concluded.
"I think the air marshals involved reached their decision in good faith six years ago," Sir Malcolm said. "But since then, there has been too much new evidence."
However, Mr Hoon immediately ruled out a fresh inquiry, saying the lengthy report contained "no new evidence".
That view was fully endorsed by the Prime Minister, a Downing Street spokesman said.
"Geoff Hoon and the Ministry of Defence have looked through the report very, very carefully. Their view is it does not constitute grounds for a new inquiry," he said.
He said: "He is obviously aware of the PAC report. He would, I am sure, have had words with Geoff Hoon in the margins of the Cabinet today," the Downing Street spokesman said.
However, he ruled out Prime Ministerial intervention, saying: "Geoff Hoon is the Defence Secretary. He accepts his decision."
Jenny Percival
The Scotsman
Friday, 1st December 2000
A decision beyond belief
TONY Blair was last night accused of a cover-up and of betraying the armed forces after he dismissed demands for a fresh inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster.
Relatives and campaigners said the government’s attitude was "beyond belief" as ministers insisted there was no new evidence in a Commons report into the crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
The report by the public accounts committee accused the Ministry of Defence of "unwarrantable arrogance" for refusing to overturn its decision to blame the accident on the two dead pilots, Flt Lts Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook. The four air crew and 25 senior Northern Ireland intelligence officers on board were killed when the helicopter crashed into a hill on 2 June, 1994.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, infuriated relatives and campaigners when he said he was unable to take the report seriously. Downing Street backed Mr Hoon and said there were no grounds for a review.
Flt Lt Tapper’s father, Mike, said: "It is incredible to think of the language used to attack the public accounts committee; it is beyond belief. To describe their report as superficial is irrational. Mr Hoon and his officials are no longer talking sense."
Susan Phoenix, whose husband Ian, a counter-intelligence expert with the RUC, was killed in the crash, joined the protests over the MoD’s refusal to drop the charge of pilot error against the two pilots. She accused the MoD of "arrogance" in its handling of the affair and its response to the public accounts committee’s report.
Dr Phoenix said: "All we need is someone with a little bit of confidence and bravery in the MoD to say, ‘Look a mistake was made. In the light of this new evidence, we have to consider the finding and we will officially set aside the finding of crude negligence’.
"We must remember on a special forces flight there are four crew members. There were two pilots and two air load masters who were all highly-qualified young men. They were not going to fly that Chinook into the side of a mountain without doing something."
Captain John Cook, Rick’s father, said: "I thought it was game, set and match to us, but since hearing what the secretary of state had to say, I’m angry. That’s a total insult to the public accounts committee and an insult to us and everybody who’s fighting for the boys."
He added: "I’ve had RAF wives coming up to me and saying: ‘Please stay with it. We’re right behind you. It might be us one day.’"
The government’s failure to act was a betrayal of all those in the armed forces who risked their lives for their country, said Capt Cook.
He added: "We have listened to their [the MoD’s] lies and distortions for six years. They are the accusers and they have no evidence and yet they have the nerve to turn around and ask us for evidence. If they had not blamed the pilots don’t you think that you and the House of Commons and everyone else would be asking questions?"
Lord Chalfont, the chairman of the cross-party Mull of Kintyre group and a former Labour defence minister, was also astounded by Mr Hoon’s response and said the government had "lost the plot" if it thought the committee’s report was superficial.
Despite Mr Blair’s comments, he would be writing to him today to demand a meeting with representatives from the group. Lord Chalfont is also pressing for a select committee of peers to be set up to review the MoD’s verdict of pilot error.
Tory MP Robert Key, a former defence minister, said the group was making some progress. He pointed to the publication yesterday of a 1987 on Aircraft Accident Investigation Procedures in the Armed Services which states that "it’s not the purpose (of boards of inquiry) to apportion blame or responsibility".
He said the MoD’s insistance that the dead pilots were to blame had affected morale among service personnel who were concerned that they too could be posthumously blamed for an accident.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Tory defence secretary at the time of the crash, said evidence casting doubt on the verdict had emerged since the inquiry was concluded.
"I think the air marshals involved reached their decision in good faith six years ago," Sir Malcolm said. "But since then, there has been too much new evidence."
However, Mr Hoon immediately ruled out a fresh inquiry, saying the lengthy report contained "no new evidence".
That view was fully endorsed by the Prime Minister, a Downing Street spokesman said.
"Geoff Hoon and the Ministry of Defence have looked through the report very, very carefully. Their view is it does not constitute grounds for a new inquiry," he said.
He said: "He is obviously aware of the PAC report. He would, I am sure, have had words with Geoff Hoon in the margins of the Cabinet today," the Downing Street spokesman said.
However, he ruled out Prime Ministerial intervention, saying: "Geoff Hoon is the Defence Secretary. He accepts his decision."
Jenny Percival
The Scotsman
Friday, 1st December 2000
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm normally pretty rational, but I nearly strangled my television last night. I am so glad I got out when I did, yet I grieve for those who still serve and are now represented by a Minister of State who clearly had a charisma bypass at birth.
I remember once being told that there is no point in having an argument with people who definition of facts is different to yours. This is precisely what we have here. There is clearly a fundamental disconnect between what we all see as irrefutable facts and what Hoon, Wratten and Day see as irritating distractions.
What I mean is that their views on, for example, what is a "formally constituted BOI" and "absolutely no doubt" are different from ours and we will never change them. It just makes our task more difficult, but then victory will be all the sweeter in the end!
I have not felt so strongly about something for a long time. I think I've calmed down enough now to e-mail Blair, Hoon and my MP, who incidentally is a member of the PAC whose report has been dismissed in such a cavalier manner.
I remember once being told that there is no point in having an argument with people who definition of facts is different to yours. This is precisely what we have here. There is clearly a fundamental disconnect between what we all see as irrefutable facts and what Hoon, Wratten and Day see as irritating distractions.
What I mean is that their views on, for example, what is a "formally constituted BOI" and "absolutely no doubt" are different from ours and we will never change them. It just makes our task more difficult, but then victory will be all the sweeter in the end!
I have not felt so strongly about something for a long time. I think I've calmed down enough now to e-mail Blair, Hoon and my MP, who incidentally is a member of the PAC whose report has been dismissed in such a cavalier manner.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I too watched C4 news and Newsnight last night and was appalled by the performances of Spellar, Hoon and most of all Wratten.
Mr Hoon,
You are being appallingly ill advised. I urge you to get away from the civil servants and Air Marshalls at MOD and instead spend some time talking to frontline aircrew. This is not going to go away and Tony Blair is going to be very upset with you when this blows up in the Governments face.
Brian, John et al - good luck.
Mr Hoon,
You are being appallingly ill advised. I urge you to get away from the civil servants and Air Marshalls at MOD and instead spend some time talking to frontline aircrew. This is not going to go away and Tony Blair is going to be very upset with you when this blows up in the Governments face.
Brian, John et al - good luck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Much as I understand the anger floating about, truth needs to be separated from fiction calmly if this matter is to be resolved.
I enjoyed Paxman's performance but his argument was undermined because Paxo (like many others) doesn't understand the RAF BOI system. The harsh fact is that a BOI operates under different rules from a court of law. The rules of evidence are looser and very different for the very good reason that the aim is to find the cause of an accident, not to administer punishment. For that reason, lawyers are deliberately exlcuded and the BOI may listen to 'hearsay' because legal niceties should not be allowed to stand in the way of flight safety. Therefore, Paxman was off beam when he accused BW of finding the crew guilt of 'manslaughter'. BW did nothing of the sort - manslaughter could only bave been determined by a court martial based on a separate summary of evidence. It has to be said that this truth also undermines Lord C's advice from a senior Scottish judge. Of course the BOI evidence would never stand up in a Scottish court of law, but a BOI is NOT a court of law and never should be if we are to stand any chance of getting to be bottom of flying accidents.
The MOD is apparently ignoring the Commons Public Accounts Committee. I know that I am going to get shot down in flames, but what does an Accounts Committee know about flight safety? That doesn't mean that they are wrong in their conclusion, but just because they are MPs doesn't mean they are automatically right about matters flying (or crime or the NHS for that matter). This campaign needs to be refocused to succeed. And one step may be to stop knocking personalities. People may not like me saying this, but the great British public rather likes its Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals to be robust and stand up for what they believe to be right. Paxman et al might not like it, but BW stood his ground and, in an age when senior executives run a mile from taking responsibility, he generated grudging respect. A proposal to put BW in charge of Railtrack might receive overwhelming public endorsement.
I await the flood of counterblasts.
I enjoyed Paxman's performance but his argument was undermined because Paxo (like many others) doesn't understand the RAF BOI system. The harsh fact is that a BOI operates under different rules from a court of law. The rules of evidence are looser and very different for the very good reason that the aim is to find the cause of an accident, not to administer punishment. For that reason, lawyers are deliberately exlcuded and the BOI may listen to 'hearsay' because legal niceties should not be allowed to stand in the way of flight safety. Therefore, Paxman was off beam when he accused BW of finding the crew guilt of 'manslaughter'. BW did nothing of the sort - manslaughter could only bave been determined by a court martial based on a separate summary of evidence. It has to be said that this truth also undermines Lord C's advice from a senior Scottish judge. Of course the BOI evidence would never stand up in a Scottish court of law, but a BOI is NOT a court of law and never should be if we are to stand any chance of getting to be bottom of flying accidents.
The MOD is apparently ignoring the Commons Public Accounts Committee. I know that I am going to get shot down in flames, but what does an Accounts Committee know about flight safety? That doesn't mean that they are wrong in their conclusion, but just because they are MPs doesn't mean they are automatically right about matters flying (or crime or the NHS for that matter). This campaign needs to be refocused to succeed. And one step may be to stop knocking personalities. People may not like me saying this, but the great British public rather likes its Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals to be robust and stand up for what they believe to be right. Paxman et al might not like it, but BW stood his ground and, in an age when senior executives run a mile from taking responsibility, he generated grudging respect. A proposal to put BW in charge of Railtrack might receive overwhelming public endorsement.
I await the flood of counterblasts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flatiron - a reasoned argument. But I think the a lot of folk are so incensed by BW's attitude BECAUSE he is so wrong. Anyone who has read the full BOI and Andy Pulford's conclusions can see that there was a miscariage of justice. It is the arrogance with which he dismisses other's views which is so demeaning to the Service so many people respect and admire.
You remark on the use of the term "manslaughter" but the point being made was that if someone causes death by gross negligence they would be accused of manslaughter in a court of law. Obviously, a BOI is not a court of law but it does take evidence on oath and makes a pronouncement on the case.
The man who took that evidence, a Chinook pilot with many years of experience, did not feel able, on the evidence he had, to come to a positive conclusion. Wratten refuses to explain why he believes Pulford was so wrong and how he, on exactly the same evidence, was able to prove what the pilots were doing and why they were doing it. Indeed his only reply is to condemn this experienced pilot as a "junior officer" who "did not fully understand the events". I'm sure Group Captain Pulford is feeling very happy today.
You say that the PAC could not understand the case but I can assure you that it was advised by many experienced pilots and engineers over the course of the year.
To be frank, you dont need to be an aviation expert. Simply read Andy Pulford's comments on the BOI:
"With no ADR, CVR, survivors or witnesses, the Board based its findings on logical argument based on limited evidence...There were many potential causes of the accident and, despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause....The Board could not avoid a degree of speculation....However, after careful consideration, the board concluded that the most probable cause... was that the crew selected an inappropriate rate of climb...
Pulford is at pains, throughout the BOI, to explain that his theory is just that, a theory amongst many posiblities.
Wratten MUST show how he knows better.
Finally, Wratten in charge of Railtrack? Haven't they had enough problems already?
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]
You remark on the use of the term "manslaughter" but the point being made was that if someone causes death by gross negligence they would be accused of manslaughter in a court of law. Obviously, a BOI is not a court of law but it does take evidence on oath and makes a pronouncement on the case.
The man who took that evidence, a Chinook pilot with many years of experience, did not feel able, on the evidence he had, to come to a positive conclusion. Wratten refuses to explain why he believes Pulford was so wrong and how he, on exactly the same evidence, was able to prove what the pilots were doing and why they were doing it. Indeed his only reply is to condemn this experienced pilot as a "junior officer" who "did not fully understand the events". I'm sure Group Captain Pulford is feeling very happy today.
You say that the PAC could not understand the case but I can assure you that it was advised by many experienced pilots and engineers over the course of the year.
To be frank, you dont need to be an aviation expert. Simply read Andy Pulford's comments on the BOI:
"With no ADR, CVR, survivors or witnesses, the Board based its findings on logical argument based on limited evidence...There were many potential causes of the accident and, despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause....The Board could not avoid a degree of speculation....However, after careful consideration, the board concluded that the most probable cause... was that the crew selected an inappropriate rate of climb...
Pulford is at pains, throughout the BOI, to explain that his theory is just that, a theory amongst many posiblities.
Wratten MUST show how he knows better.
Finally, Wratten in charge of Railtrack? Haven't they had enough problems already?
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 01 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flatiron
Agree, BOI is not a court of law and the evidential standards are different. That said, when you are the person to have assembled the evidence, sifted through it and formed a conclusion it is right that your findings should be upheld. The problem is that Wratten and Day only reviewed the material in front of them and were not at the 'coalface' as it were.
Despite being described as a 'junior officer', the then Wg Cdr Pulford (now Gp Capt) was a very experienced Chinook operator. The other 2 Board members likewise were very experienced. Between them the Board had the knowledge and experience to formulate a decision that was correct on the facts as they perceived them. The decision was then passed up to Gp Capt Wedge, a similarly very experienced helicopter pilot with substantial experience of flying in bad weather conditions from his SAR days. He seemingly concurred with the Board.
Things only seem to have gone wrong when the paperwork left the front line and got into the command chain. There the initial findings of experienced helicopter operators were overturned by individuals who might have a good grasp of strategic issues, but whose distance from current front line conditions diluted their knowledge. They had not heard nor assembled the evidence, but instead would have relied on summarised material. Neither Day nor Wratten had ever operated Chinook Mk 2 so were now making decisions based on limited knowledge of the aircraft type and personal knowledge only of the different aircraft that they had flown.
Wratten's insistence last night that the crew should have climbed through freezing cloud and potentially severe icing conditions to one of the highest safety altitudes in the UK, with no easy means of getting back to earth to deliver their passengers, suggests a poor analysis of the situation.
Every time I've been near icing conditions in a helicopter we've either gone back, landed or, on more than one occasion, slowed down to taxi speed and gone under wires! Never did we try to climb through cloud or risk IMC. The crew may have believed that the actions they were taking were safe in the conditions. I suspect that all 4 crew both at brief and during the sortie would have discussed the merits or otherwise of continuing, turning back, climbing, descending etc and it is not right for Wratten, who didn't possess all of the information, to say what height and speed they should have been at.
I do not understand why Hoon and Blair will not accept the PACs recommendations. There is clearly something that we are not being told.
Flatiron - PAC is a general comittee that covers diverse matters. It can ask for any evidence it wishes. It is the senior committee of the House of Commons. MPs obviously are not experts in all matters put before them, but I suspect that in investigating this particular matter they determined to be fair to all parties. I am sure that, if they felt that Wratten and Day were right, they would have reached that conclusion.
Agree, BOI is not a court of law and the evidential standards are different. That said, when you are the person to have assembled the evidence, sifted through it and formed a conclusion it is right that your findings should be upheld. The problem is that Wratten and Day only reviewed the material in front of them and were not at the 'coalface' as it were.
Despite being described as a 'junior officer', the then Wg Cdr Pulford (now Gp Capt) was a very experienced Chinook operator. The other 2 Board members likewise were very experienced. Between them the Board had the knowledge and experience to formulate a decision that was correct on the facts as they perceived them. The decision was then passed up to Gp Capt Wedge, a similarly very experienced helicopter pilot with substantial experience of flying in bad weather conditions from his SAR days. He seemingly concurred with the Board.
Things only seem to have gone wrong when the paperwork left the front line and got into the command chain. There the initial findings of experienced helicopter operators were overturned by individuals who might have a good grasp of strategic issues, but whose distance from current front line conditions diluted their knowledge. They had not heard nor assembled the evidence, but instead would have relied on summarised material. Neither Day nor Wratten had ever operated Chinook Mk 2 so were now making decisions based on limited knowledge of the aircraft type and personal knowledge only of the different aircraft that they had flown.
Wratten's insistence last night that the crew should have climbed through freezing cloud and potentially severe icing conditions to one of the highest safety altitudes in the UK, with no easy means of getting back to earth to deliver their passengers, suggests a poor analysis of the situation.
Every time I've been near icing conditions in a helicopter we've either gone back, landed or, on more than one occasion, slowed down to taxi speed and gone under wires! Never did we try to climb through cloud or risk IMC. The crew may have believed that the actions they were taking were safe in the conditions. I suspect that all 4 crew both at brief and during the sortie would have discussed the merits or otherwise of continuing, turning back, climbing, descending etc and it is not right for Wratten, who didn't possess all of the information, to say what height and speed they should have been at.
I do not understand why Hoon and Blair will not accept the PACs recommendations. There is clearly something that we are not being told.
Flatiron - PAC is a general comittee that covers diverse matters. It can ask for any evidence it wishes. It is the senior committee of the House of Commons. MPs obviously are not experts in all matters put before them, but I suspect that in investigating this particular matter they determined to be fair to all parties. I am sure that, if they felt that Wratten and Day were right, they would have reached that conclusion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flatiron,
For what it's worth I agree with your assessment of the Paxman interview in that it was weak and not up (or down?) to the usual standard, probably for the reasons you give. I reluctantly thought Wratten was impressive (that's good), arrogant (not necessarily bad in a military officer?) and possibly dishonest in the way he presented the little information that he did(definitely bad). Two examples, he kept referring to the decision made by "him and his colleagues" as if it was a collective decision, and he wrote off the BOI as "junior officers with little experience" and this would appear to misrepresent the truth, judging by the response from people who know some of them.
However, I would argue with you about the Select Committee. First let me say that I have little respect for most MP's and I have no military experience (unless you count three years as an Air Cadet). Like you I am also interested in RAF history and, for what it's worth, have just about enough pilot experience to understand the main techical issues in the case.
What I also have is a passion for individual justice and, in our society, we have several systems for enabling such justice, whether it be through the law, or through parliament.
In both cases, the decisions are usually collectively made by individuals in the form of a jury or, as here, by a group of elected representatives which is arranged to reduce the possibility of vested interest i.e party politics. In neither case, need the decision makers have any relevant technical knowledge
In both cases, there are safety nets. Collective decisions are more likely to be safe, and there are mechanisms for challenging both.
I recognise that, in the military, the justice process may have to be different, although I cannot see how it needs to be in peacetime. But, in a just society, even the military should have recourse to challenge unjust decisions especially when they are not made collectively but, as we seem to have here, by a single individual. (OK two if you push me)
In both cases the deciding body can hear arguments from technical experts, some of whom may have a vested interest. They should therefore listen to more than one.
Our whole political system is based on MP's arguing and voting about things about which they may know very little. This is probably as good as it gets so, until there is a better way of challenging injustice within the military, let us support it.
The only alternative I can think of is used by doctors and lawyers, where the judgement is made, again collectively and openly, by their peers. I can't see that ever happening.
PS MP's secretary has promised me a personal reply from him in next few days. I will adise if it says anything interesting.
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
For what it's worth I agree with your assessment of the Paxman interview in that it was weak and not up (or down?) to the usual standard, probably for the reasons you give. I reluctantly thought Wratten was impressive (that's good), arrogant (not necessarily bad in a military officer?) and possibly dishonest in the way he presented the little information that he did(definitely bad). Two examples, he kept referring to the decision made by "him and his colleagues" as if it was a collective decision, and he wrote off the BOI as "junior officers with little experience" and this would appear to misrepresent the truth, judging by the response from people who know some of them.
However, I would argue with you about the Select Committee. First let me say that I have little respect for most MP's and I have no military experience (unless you count three years as an Air Cadet). Like you I am also interested in RAF history and, for what it's worth, have just about enough pilot experience to understand the main techical issues in the case.
What I also have is a passion for individual justice and, in our society, we have several systems for enabling such justice, whether it be through the law, or through parliament.
In both cases, the decisions are usually collectively made by individuals in the form of a jury or, as here, by a group of elected representatives which is arranged to reduce the possibility of vested interest i.e party politics. In neither case, need the decision makers have any relevant technical knowledge
In both cases, there are safety nets. Collective decisions are more likely to be safe, and there are mechanisms for challenging both.
I recognise that, in the military, the justice process may have to be different, although I cannot see how it needs to be in peacetime. But, in a just society, even the military should have recourse to challenge unjust decisions especially when they are not made collectively but, as we seem to have here, by a single individual. (OK two if you push me)
In both cases the deciding body can hear arguments from technical experts, some of whom may have a vested interest. They should therefore listen to more than one.
Our whole political system is based on MP's arguing and voting about things about which they may know very little. This is probably as good as it gets so, until there is a better way of challenging injustice within the military, let us support it.
The only alternative I can think of is used by doctors and lawyers, where the judgement is made, again collectively and openly, by their peers. I can't see that ever happening.
PS MP's secretary has promised me a personal reply from him in next few days. I will adise if it says anything interesting.
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suggestions:
1. Get everyone you know to write to the PM calling for Hoon's resignation. Likewise get same people to copy their letters to both local and national newspapers. If possible they should copy same to MoD and to their own MPs. Ensure everyone does it and refers to the Mull of Kintyre incident. Help people by drafting letters and getting them to sign.
2. Those who like to invest wisely put some of their money into 'blue chip' companies. Rolls Royce have for many years now been a very good bet. Add a few hundred RR shares to your portfolio; thousands if you can afford it. Then, as a shareholder, attend the AGM and query quite loudly why Wratten is employed in a consulting role. As a shareholder write and ask the company what he's being paid. Point out the bad publicity RR are getting from this affair - remember thousands of influential people in the aviation world read this site. If there is enough will get together with other shareholders and put Wratten's consultancy on the agenda for the AGM, or, if rules allow, those of you who are already shareholders could force an EGM. Get the b@st**d sacked!
Lest anyone thinks this is harsh, remember Cook and Tapper families have not received compensation from the MoD because of Wratten's decision and he'll still have his pension. If Hoon is sacked as Minister he'll still be paid as an MP.
1. Get everyone you know to write to the PM calling for Hoon's resignation. Likewise get same people to copy their letters to both local and national newspapers. If possible they should copy same to MoD and to their own MPs. Ensure everyone does it and refers to the Mull of Kintyre incident. Help people by drafting letters and getting them to sign.
2. Those who like to invest wisely put some of their money into 'blue chip' companies. Rolls Royce have for many years now been a very good bet. Add a few hundred RR shares to your portfolio; thousands if you can afford it. Then, as a shareholder, attend the AGM and query quite loudly why Wratten is employed in a consulting role. As a shareholder write and ask the company what he's being paid. Point out the bad publicity RR are getting from this affair - remember thousands of influential people in the aviation world read this site. If there is enough will get together with other shareholders and put Wratten's consultancy on the agenda for the AGM, or, if rules allow, those of you who are already shareholders could force an EGM. Get the b@st**d sacked!
Lest anyone thinks this is harsh, remember Cook and Tapper families have not received compensation from the MoD because of Wratten's decision and he'll still have his pension. If Hoon is sacked as Minister he'll still be paid as an MP.