Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEags
Interesting postulation! I do so love a whodunnit. Other strange clues in the e-mail address. Surely you don't think that Pillgarlick, being bald, being a retired pilot and being based in Bristol (at RR) is in fact ACM Wratten?
Odd that an anonymous person should have a go at those who have to be anonymous! I can use my real name - as can Brian Dixon and John Nichol. It doesn't necessarily mean that our views are more or less important. Surely, however, P'garlic understands that many of the contributors in this forum work in a command chain that tops out at ACM Day and Geoff Hoon and might fear the harm that could be done to their careers should either gentleman take umbrage. Indeed, Mr Garlic himself doesn't want his current employers to know what he thinks - perhaps you, BEags, are close to the mark.
It is interesting also that many 'new' contibutors are joining in, but I get the feeling that those who are quick to condemn haven't read all of the posts, many of the articles or the reports etc. Certainly the letters in the Times were not written by individuals who have followed every twist and turn of this case.
The fact remains that there is not enough evidence to make a proper judgement one way or the other.
PG - Although I knew one of the crewmen very well the pilots were strangers to me, but I can still feel a sense of injustice having read the report and having a working knowledge of SH operations. I'd be equally concerned if ACM Wratten was dead and unable to defend himself from unsustainable allegations.
Interesting postulation! I do so love a whodunnit. Other strange clues in the e-mail address. Surely you don't think that Pillgarlick, being bald, being a retired pilot and being based in Bristol (at RR) is in fact ACM Wratten?
Odd that an anonymous person should have a go at those who have to be anonymous! I can use my real name - as can Brian Dixon and John Nichol. It doesn't necessarily mean that our views are more or less important. Surely, however, P'garlic understands that many of the contributors in this forum work in a command chain that tops out at ACM Day and Geoff Hoon and might fear the harm that could be done to their careers should either gentleman take umbrage. Indeed, Mr Garlic himself doesn't want his current employers to know what he thinks - perhaps you, BEags, are close to the mark.
It is interesting also that many 'new' contibutors are joining in, but I get the feeling that those who are quick to condemn haven't read all of the posts, many of the articles or the reports etc. Certainly the letters in the Times were not written by individuals who have followed every twist and turn of this case.
The fact remains that there is not enough evidence to make a proper judgement one way or the other.
PG - Although I knew one of the crewmen very well the pilots were strangers to me, but I can still feel a sense of injustice having read the report and having a working knowledge of SH operations. I'd be equally concerned if ACM Wratten was dead and unable to defend himself from unsustainable allegations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PW - like you I would regret the demise of anyone, no matter who they might be and what their views might be, in any aircraft accident. Whether Pillgarlick is, in fact, the knight of the realm in question does not concern me unduly; however, a distinguished fighter pilot and leader should know how to disengage with honour.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilgarlic
I care not a fig for who you are, but a post of such arrogance deserves a reply.
You are clearly an individual with a limited intellect and a poor grasp of the situation. If you would care to read all of the posts again you may care to find that MOST of them are reasoned and well thought out.
For many, if not all, this is not a case of blame or absolution, but a matter of principal.
The tone of your post suggests that you have been, or are a senior officer. I would care to suggest Sir, that you are the one carping behind a wall of anonimity and not the other way around.
And by the way, when we, as junior officers, eventually realise that command is not as easy as it looks, we'll let you know.
YOU ARROGANT PRICK! Tell your story walking...
[This message has been edited by Preciousboy (edited 03 December 2000).]
I care not a fig for who you are, but a post of such arrogance deserves a reply.
You are clearly an individual with a limited intellect and a poor grasp of the situation. If you would care to read all of the posts again you may care to find that MOST of them are reasoned and well thought out.
For many, if not all, this is not a case of blame or absolution, but a matter of principal.
The tone of your post suggests that you have been, or are a senior officer. I would care to suggest Sir, that you are the one carping behind a wall of anonimity and not the other way around.
And by the way, when we, as junior officers, eventually realise that command is not as easy as it looks, we'll let you know.
YOU ARROGANT PRICK! Tell your story walking...
[This message has been edited by Preciousboy (edited 03 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
PG, ask yourself this question: How objective were Wratten & Day? The largest single RAF generated loss of life in decades; such a high profile passenger list; the political requirement for scapegoats. If your talking about 'objective', think of things from both ends.
Furthermore, there are many SH operators out there who think that Rick and John probably/may have got it wrong. However, the whole point is that there is a degree of doubt and there are other factors that may have contributed.
Furthermore, there are many SH operators out there who think that Rick and John probably/may have got it wrong. However, the whole point is that there is a degree of doubt and there are other factors that may have contributed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilgarlick,
welcome to the debate. My involvement, as I have frequently stated, is that I used to serve with the crew who were tragically lost on 2 June 1994. That is why I campaign so vigorously. If I am honest (as you request), I would have to say that if I had not known and respected the crew, I probably would not be such a big thorn in the side of Messrs Hoon and Blair. However, I would still have grave concerns regarding the leadership of the RAF with regard to impartial judgements following an investigation. Nor would it have mattered who was at the controls.
As you have asked for honesty, may I return the compliment and ask for honest answers to the following:
1. Why do you suggest that the Board of Inquiry may be partisan? Surely it was the responsibility of those senior officers to appoint a Board that would be thorough, experienced and inpartial? Anything less would surely be derreliction of duty. Might I add that I believe the Board acted with the utmost integrity.
2. You criticise those who are anonymous, yet you yourself are anonymous. Who are you? You have such strong views. Do not be ashamed to stand up and be counted.
I have said it before and I will repeat it here to you. I do not know what went on in the last few moments of the flight. If you can offer and support hard evidence which proves that Jon or Rick were negligent, I will publically conceed the point. If you can't, we will have to agree to differ.
You may be correct in your comment that intemperate and often violent language is not of any great benefit to the argument. It is, however, a good barometer to the feelings of those who believe a serious injustice has been made.
Should you, indeed, be the individual others speculate you to be, I would still welcome you to the site as I think that you should have the opportunity to answer the many questions that most of us still have regarding the matter. If you are not that individual, I look forward to a meaningful debate anyway.
Regards
Brian Dixon
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 03 December 2000).]
welcome to the debate. My involvement, as I have frequently stated, is that I used to serve with the crew who were tragically lost on 2 June 1994. That is why I campaign so vigorously. If I am honest (as you request), I would have to say that if I had not known and respected the crew, I probably would not be such a big thorn in the side of Messrs Hoon and Blair. However, I would still have grave concerns regarding the leadership of the RAF with regard to impartial judgements following an investigation. Nor would it have mattered who was at the controls.
As you have asked for honesty, may I return the compliment and ask for honest answers to the following:
1. Why do you suggest that the Board of Inquiry may be partisan? Surely it was the responsibility of those senior officers to appoint a Board that would be thorough, experienced and inpartial? Anything less would surely be derreliction of duty. Might I add that I believe the Board acted with the utmost integrity.
2. You criticise those who are anonymous, yet you yourself are anonymous. Who are you? You have such strong views. Do not be ashamed to stand up and be counted.
I have said it before and I will repeat it here to you. I do not know what went on in the last few moments of the flight. If you can offer and support hard evidence which proves that Jon or Rick were negligent, I will publically conceed the point. If you can't, we will have to agree to differ.
You may be correct in your comment that intemperate and often violent language is not of any great benefit to the argument. It is, however, a good barometer to the feelings of those who believe a serious injustice has been made.
Should you, indeed, be the individual others speculate you to be, I would still welcome you to the site as I think that you should have the opportunity to answer the many questions that most of us still have regarding the matter. If you are not that individual, I look forward to a meaningful debate anyway.
Regards
Brian Dixon
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 03 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been watching this thread with considerable interest and sympathy, as my own little corner of the RAF had a problem which received an OTT reaction from Mr Wratten some years ago.
I have a question which some of you may be qualified to answer. In view of Wratten's claim that the BoI was staffed by 'inexperienced officers', can we establish the facts of this? How long had the President served, what was his flying experience and hours, and how does this compare to Sir William's experience of flying? I suspect the answers may be of interest...!
I have a question which some of you may be qualified to answer. In view of Wratten's claim that the BoI was staffed by 'inexperienced officers', can we establish the facts of this? How long had the President served, what was his flying experience and hours, and how does this compare to Sir William's experience of flying? I suspect the answers may be of interest...!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mrploppy and Brian, you beat me to it this time.
Pilgarlic, Boy named Sue(whoever you are matters not a jot), you said
'Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?'
By this statement I infer that you accuse us of sticking up for our buddies in the face of opposition from the families of the dead pax.
1. the pilots were not my buddies. Never met either one. I simply abhor injustice.
2. A friend, whose brother was lost in ZD576, is as keen for justice to be done as any other fair minded person. You insult the intelligence of those families by suggesting that they would like injustice heaped upon uncertainty and grief.
3. If you actually read the whole thread, you will find that we are not not at all 'adamant that the crew made no serious error'. It is as possible as any other cause of the accident. But it has not been proven to the burden required.
4. You quite rightly accuse us of showing a lack of respect for the senior officers involved. Although I hate cliche, respect is earned, it is not conferred as of right with the issue of gold rings. Any one who expects respect as a leader would have realised by now that his case is untenable, and should gracefully concede that he made an error of judgement in this case. Arrogance and intransigence do not earn respect.
Worth reiterating here, for any new readers: Wratten again trotted out his theory on Newsnight that Jon and Rick should have climbed to safety altitude . A letter to the Times from a PPL with no knowledge of helicopters also suggested that option. THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE. From an earlier post:
<In the article he [Wratten] maintains that the crew were negligent because they ‘should have climbed above safety altitude well before they reached the Mull’. He calculates this as 2800’, although the correct figure (accepted by the Defence Committee) is 5900’.
Examination of the weather conditions at the time show that the Sea level temperature was +9 degrees C, which allowing for a normal lapse rate of 2deg per 1000’, gives a +4 deg C level at 2500’.
As the icing clearance of the Mk 2 Chinook was +4, it is quite obvious that the pilots had no such option to climb to a safe altitude, not even Wratten’s incorrect figure.>
As to the hypocritical broadside on anonymity, I will say that on this subject I am quite happy to stick my head over the parapet and square up to the enemy. My name will be forwarded to anyone who has not already worked it out, who I can verify is not in management at my present employer; and who emails me.
Pilgarlic, Boy named Sue(whoever you are matters not a jot), you said
'Imagine also that the aircraft was being flown by two strangers, or even by the two very senior officers for whom you have so little respect. Would you be so quick to be so adamant that the crew made no serious error?'
By this statement I infer that you accuse us of sticking up for our buddies in the face of opposition from the families of the dead pax.
1. the pilots were not my buddies. Never met either one. I simply abhor injustice.
2. A friend, whose brother was lost in ZD576, is as keen for justice to be done as any other fair minded person. You insult the intelligence of those families by suggesting that they would like injustice heaped upon uncertainty and grief.
3. If you actually read the whole thread, you will find that we are not not at all 'adamant that the crew made no serious error'. It is as possible as any other cause of the accident. But it has not been proven to the burden required.
4. You quite rightly accuse us of showing a lack of respect for the senior officers involved. Although I hate cliche, respect is earned, it is not conferred as of right with the issue of gold rings. Any one who expects respect as a leader would have realised by now that his case is untenable, and should gracefully concede that he made an error of judgement in this case. Arrogance and intransigence do not earn respect.
Worth reiterating here, for any new readers: Wratten again trotted out his theory on Newsnight that Jon and Rick should have climbed to safety altitude . A letter to the Times from a PPL with no knowledge of helicopters also suggested that option. THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE. From an earlier post:
<In the article he [Wratten] maintains that the crew were negligent because they ‘should have climbed above safety altitude well before they reached the Mull’. He calculates this as 2800’, although the correct figure (accepted by the Defence Committee) is 5900’.
Examination of the weather conditions at the time show that the Sea level temperature was +9 degrees C, which allowing for a normal lapse rate of 2deg per 1000’, gives a +4 deg C level at 2500’.
As the icing clearance of the Mk 2 Chinook was +4, it is quite obvious that the pilots had no such option to climb to a safe altitude, not even Wratten’s incorrect figure.>
As to the hypocritical broadside on anonymity, I will say that on this subject I am quite happy to stick my head over the parapet and square up to the enemy. My name will be forwarded to anyone who has not already worked it out, who I can verify is not in management at my present employer; and who emails me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scroggs, we crossed in the ether.
Andy Pulford was a highly experienced Support Helicopter operator who I had the pleasure of working with during his exchange tour woth the RN in 1980.
His presidency of the BOI was praised thus:
His Station Commander, Group Captain R Wedge wrote ‘I am impressed with the meticulous and detailed examination of events which the Board has provided.
However, I believe that the exact train of events can never
be determined with absolute certainty.’
To judge Wratten's grasp of Support Helicopter operations see my thread above.
Scroggs, was 'your own little corner' anything to do with a bit of a drunken game being construed as GBH? Come on, you can tell us!
Andy Pulford was a highly experienced Support Helicopter operator who I had the pleasure of working with during his exchange tour woth the RN in 1980.
His presidency of the BOI was praised thus:
His Station Commander, Group Captain R Wedge wrote ‘I am impressed with the meticulous and detailed examination of events which the Board has provided.
However, I believe that the exact train of events can never
be determined with absolute certainty.’
To judge Wratten's grasp of Support Helicopter operations see my thread above.
Scroggs, was 'your own little corner' anything to do with a bit of a drunken game being construed as GBH? Come on, you can tell us!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Been following the thread from Knotteetingham and was always taught that justice had to be done and be seen to be done, and quickly. Just seen the question from Oldgit47 and got the article faxed. Not so sure about a memo but if there had been some doubt in the guys minds it should have been in the 700. My sympathies to all the families. This whole sorry mess is a travesty and on next leave I shall try to get to Mr F Field to seek his support. Bliar may also get a quick note explaining that no new evidence is required. The complete lack of evidence as to the contrary means that no finding of negligence should ever have been entertained! What a sad state of affairs when the findings of a properly constituded BoI can be so overridden by(effectively) one person but supported by another.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yodason,
welcome. Thanks for you comment on contacting Frank Field. He is very supportive and has tabled many questions relating to this injustice. You might also like to write to Tony Blair with your concerns. Has it affected your morale? Do you have confidence in the system?
I'll leave you with a quote from your father, Yoda. "There is no try. Either do, or do not!"
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome. Thanks for you comment on contacting Frank Field. He is very supportive and has tabled many questions relating to this injustice. You might also like to write to Tony Blair with your concerns. Has it affected your morale? Do you have confidence in the system?
I'll leave you with a quote from your father, Yoda. "There is no try. Either do, or do not!"
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yodason,
Read the Mail on Sunday article, can't find a website to link to.
Yes about the 700. How many times have you written war and peace in it to have written opposite 'fault could not be reproduced, assessed servicable'? Take point though that the old 700 pages should be available.
Read the Mail on Sunday article, can't find a website to link to.
Yes about the 700. How many times have you written war and peace in it to have written opposite 'fault could not be reproduced, assessed servicable'? Take point though that the old 700 pages should be available.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From today's Scotland on Sunday
RAF officers face grilling over Chinook verdict
By Francis Elliott Westminster Editor
THE senior RAF officers blamed for a "major miscarriage of justice" over the inquiry into the fatal Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash face a parliamentary grilling over their role in the affair.
Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who found the pilots guilty of "gross negligence", could be among the first witnesses called to a specially-convened House of Lords select committee.
Lord Chalfont, the peer who is leading the campaign to have the verdicts quashed, said he expected the air marshalls to be called to answer why they over-ruled a previous inquiry that found pilot error on the part of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook could not be proved.
The prospect of a fresh inquiry dedicated specifically to the Mull of Kintyre crash appals senior Ministry of Defence officials, who fear it will lead to months of embarrassing disclosures.
It will also add to the pressure on Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to perform an about-turn after they attempted to tough out the damning conclusions of a report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee last week.
The report, first revealed in Scotland on Sunday nine months ago, amounts to a damning indictment of the MoD’s arrogance in its handling of the inquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 in June 1994 in which all 29 crew and passengers were killed. Despite being backed by a National Audit Office report into software problems with the helicopter, Hoon rubbished the PAC’s report as "superficial". The committee was also criticised for failing to summon Day and Wratten.
Campaigners are now preparing to rectify that situation as the mechanics of setting up a specially-dedicated Lords select committee proceed. The necessary debate to constitute the body is due to be held next week.
Lord Chalfont, head of the Mull of Kintyre Action Group, who says he will not seek to serve on the committee, said: "I expect it would be under the chairmanship of a senior judge who can come to this with an entirely fresh mind. It would also be composed of members of all sides of the House and would have the power to call for persons and papers.
"I would expect [Wratten and Day] to be among the first to be called and to be asked very simply what additional evidence they had to set aside the findings of the earlier inquiry."
David Davis MP, chairman of the PAC, welcomed the prospect of a fresh parliamentary investigation. "This will help flesh out what, in my judgement, is already a clear cut case and provide the extra evidence to persuade the MoD of what is already abundantly clear to everyone else."
Meanwhile, Tony Blair signalled a softening of his stance yesterday as a spokesman promised to receive a delegation led by Lord Chalfont sympathetically.
The issue is set to return to the Commons on December 14 when the PAC’s report will be the subject of a special debate. Committee member Nigel Griffiths MP said: " This is not going to go away until Parliament is satisfied that justice has been served."
From William Hare's Diary Page:
-IT IS unusual for one select committee chairman to have a go at another committee’s findings. Not quite cricket down at the Westminster old boys’ club, don’t you know. But this didn’t stop Bruce George, chairman of the defence committee, accusing his colleagues on the public accounts committee of not knowing what they were talking about when they criticised the Ministry of Defence’s decision to blame the pilots in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash. Could Bruce’s outburst be in any way connected to his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor, the highest honour a government can bestow on a mere MP? Surely not?
<A HREF="http://www.scotlandonsunday.com" TARGET="_blank">www.scotlandonsunday.com</A>
Any chance of anyone posting up a summary of this Mail on Sunday article that's being talked about?
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 03 December 2000).]
RAF officers face grilling over Chinook verdict
By Francis Elliott Westminster Editor
THE senior RAF officers blamed for a "major miscarriage of justice" over the inquiry into the fatal Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash face a parliamentary grilling over their role in the affair.
Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, who found the pilots guilty of "gross negligence", could be among the first witnesses called to a specially-convened House of Lords select committee.
Lord Chalfont, the peer who is leading the campaign to have the verdicts quashed, said he expected the air marshalls to be called to answer why they over-ruled a previous inquiry that found pilot error on the part of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook could not be proved.
The prospect of a fresh inquiry dedicated specifically to the Mull of Kintyre crash appals senior Ministry of Defence officials, who fear it will lead to months of embarrassing disclosures.
It will also add to the pressure on Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to perform an about-turn after they attempted to tough out the damning conclusions of a report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee last week.
The report, first revealed in Scotland on Sunday nine months ago, amounts to a damning indictment of the MoD’s arrogance in its handling of the inquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD576 in June 1994 in which all 29 crew and passengers were killed. Despite being backed by a National Audit Office report into software problems with the helicopter, Hoon rubbished the PAC’s report as "superficial". The committee was also criticised for failing to summon Day and Wratten.
Campaigners are now preparing to rectify that situation as the mechanics of setting up a specially-dedicated Lords select committee proceed. The necessary debate to constitute the body is due to be held next week.
Lord Chalfont, head of the Mull of Kintyre Action Group, who says he will not seek to serve on the committee, said: "I expect it would be under the chairmanship of a senior judge who can come to this with an entirely fresh mind. It would also be composed of members of all sides of the House and would have the power to call for persons and papers.
"I would expect [Wratten and Day] to be among the first to be called and to be asked very simply what additional evidence they had to set aside the findings of the earlier inquiry."
David Davis MP, chairman of the PAC, welcomed the prospect of a fresh parliamentary investigation. "This will help flesh out what, in my judgement, is already a clear cut case and provide the extra evidence to persuade the MoD of what is already abundantly clear to everyone else."
Meanwhile, Tony Blair signalled a softening of his stance yesterday as a spokesman promised to receive a delegation led by Lord Chalfont sympathetically.
The issue is set to return to the Commons on December 14 when the PAC’s report will be the subject of a special debate. Committee member Nigel Griffiths MP said: " This is not going to go away until Parliament is satisfied that justice has been served."
From William Hare's Diary Page:
-IT IS unusual for one select committee chairman to have a go at another committee’s findings. Not quite cricket down at the Westminster old boys’ club, don’t you know. But this didn’t stop Bruce George, chairman of the defence committee, accusing his colleagues on the public accounts committee of not knowing what they were talking about when they criticised the Ministry of Defence’s decision to blame the pilots in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash. Could Bruce’s outburst be in any way connected to his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor, the highest honour a government can bestow on a mere MP? Surely not?
<A HREF="http://www.scotlandonsunday.com" TARGET="_blank">www.scotlandonsunday.com</A>
Any chance of anyone posting up a summary of this Mail on Sunday article that's being talked about?
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 03 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I haven't read the complete BOI report and I havent read all of the posts on this thread however I would like to make the following comment and hopefully not ruffle too many feathers.
Is it possible that the BOI criticized the pilots so harshly because they didn't want to blame the helicopter. After all, the UK MOD has a lot invested in the CH-47s and they find it difficult to say it may have been some sort of systems failure that caused the accident or, a systems failure that would not allow the pilots to take corrective action. The CH-47 doesn't have a good reliability record and right behind it, is the Apache. Just wait until the first Apache prangs and the pilots don't survive. Guess who will get blamed in order to protect that program.
------------------
The Cat
Is it possible that the BOI criticized the pilots so harshly because they didn't want to blame the helicopter. After all, the UK MOD has a lot invested in the CH-47s and they find it difficult to say it may have been some sort of systems failure that caused the accident or, a systems failure that would not allow the pilots to take corrective action. The CH-47 doesn't have a good reliability record and right behind it, is the Apache. Just wait until the first Apache prangs and the pilots don't survive. Guess who will get blamed in order to protect that program.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mrploppy, yer 'tis
Pilots ‘feared Chinook was unfit to fly' By Christopher Leake
THE Government was urged last night to investigate claims that the
two RAF pilots blamed for the Mull of Kintyre crash sent a memo warnmg that their helicopter was not fit to fly the mission.
Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who died in the crash with two other crew and 25 intelligence officers, are understood to have given their warning in a handwritten note to senior ranks hours
before they took off from Aldergrove in Belfast on June 2,1994. After returning from an early morning sortie over Northern Ireland in the Chinook Mk II, the pilots asked engineers to check the controls and the FADEC engine control system.
The memo, signed by both pilots, said serious UFCMs (Uncommanded Flying Control Movements) were experienced during the sortie. The note talked of FADEC malfunctions during the flight.
It concluded: ‘It is our considered the opinion that, in the light of these and previous UFCMs, this aircraft should not be used for this special flight.’
Senior RAF sources said engineers tried to reproduce the problems complained of by the pilots. The were But they failed to repeat them, and passed the Chinook fit to fly its mission to Scotland.
Defence insiders say the note, the existence of which has never been revealed ‘during six years of official inquiries by the RAF, Parliament and in Scotland, is in files kept at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire, headquarters of the RAE’s Personnel and training Command.
David Davis, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, which last week declared that the RAF inquiry into the fatal crash was flawed and should be overturned, last night asked the National Audit Office — the Government’s spending watchdog — to find the memo.
Mr Davis said: ‘It would demonstrate only too clearly that the possibility of a technical malfunction was much higher than has been claimed by the Ministry of Defence in all their evidence to Parliament.’
Mike Tapper, father of Flt Lt Tapper, said: ‘We need to see that memorandum fast and we need an explanation from the MoD and the Royal Air Force as to why it has not been produced before.’
The MoD said in a statement last night: ‘The pilots had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of their aircraft and their passengers, and possessed the necessary experience to do so. Had they had any doubts, it would have been open to them not to accept the aircraft for flight.’
Asked if the memo existed, an MoD spokesman replied: ‘Nobody is aware of the existence of any memo that you described. There is a lot of information that has been flying back and forth. We would have no reason to hide a memo like that. We have been as open as we can be.’
Yeah, right. Military personell 'refuse to fly servicable aircraft'. In your dreams!
Pilots ‘feared Chinook was unfit to fly' By Christopher Leake
THE Government was urged last night to investigate claims that the
two RAF pilots blamed for the Mull of Kintyre crash sent a memo warnmg that their helicopter was not fit to fly the mission.
Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who died in the crash with two other crew and 25 intelligence officers, are understood to have given their warning in a handwritten note to senior ranks hours
before they took off from Aldergrove in Belfast on June 2,1994. After returning from an early morning sortie over Northern Ireland in the Chinook Mk II, the pilots asked engineers to check the controls and the FADEC engine control system.
The memo, signed by both pilots, said serious UFCMs (Uncommanded Flying Control Movements) were experienced during the sortie. The note talked of FADEC malfunctions during the flight.
It concluded: ‘It is our considered the opinion that, in the light of these and previous UFCMs, this aircraft should not be used for this special flight.’
Senior RAF sources said engineers tried to reproduce the problems complained of by the pilots. The were But they failed to repeat them, and passed the Chinook fit to fly its mission to Scotland.
Defence insiders say the note, the existence of which has never been revealed ‘during six years of official inquiries by the RAF, Parliament and in Scotland, is in files kept at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire, headquarters of the RAE’s Personnel and training Command.
David Davis, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, which last week declared that the RAF inquiry into the fatal crash was flawed and should be overturned, last night asked the National Audit Office — the Government’s spending watchdog — to find the memo.
Mr Davis said: ‘It would demonstrate only too clearly that the possibility of a technical malfunction was much higher than has been claimed by the Ministry of Defence in all their evidence to Parliament.’
Mike Tapper, father of Flt Lt Tapper, said: ‘We need to see that memorandum fast and we need an explanation from the MoD and the Royal Air Force as to why it has not been produced before.’
The MoD said in a statement last night: ‘The pilots had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of their aircraft and their passengers, and possessed the necessary experience to do so. Had they had any doubts, it would have been open to them not to accept the aircraft for flight.’
Asked if the memo existed, an MoD spokesman replied: ‘Nobody is aware of the existence of any memo that you described. There is a lot of information that has been flying back and forth. We would have no reason to hide a memo like that. We have been as open as we can be.’
Yeah, right. Military personell 'refuse to fly servicable aircraft'. In your dreams!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ark,
thanks for your answer, although not totally what I was looking for. My point was that, in all probability, Wratten's flying experience is inferior to that of the BoI due to his lifetime concentration on the greasy pole. It's a side issue, and of marginal importance, but it does grip my sh*t when a senior officer with limited poling time critices the judgement of professional and current aviators.
Don't recognise your description of 'the problem in my corner of the RAF'(but sounds interesting....). Although I wasn't involved in said problem, Wratten's reaction to it severely upset all of us on that particular fleet.
thanks for your answer, although not totally what I was looking for. My point was that, in all probability, Wratten's flying experience is inferior to that of the BoI due to his lifetime concentration on the greasy pole. It's a side issue, and of marginal importance, but it does grip my sh*t when a senior officer with limited poling time critices the judgement of professional and current aviators.
Don't recognise your description of 'the problem in my corner of the RAF'(but sounds interesting....). Although I wasn't involved in said problem, Wratten's reaction to it severely upset all of us on that particular fleet.