Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
"To be authorised to carry such a VIP load one must assume that the crew were highly qualified and experienced." ... FJJP, Dec 10.
The crew was highly qualified and they had flown in the Mull area previously.
Does it not seem strange that so many top security personnel connected with the problems of Northern Ireland should have been put together on board a Chinook which had had numerous parts replaced in the previous few months and when the IRA and other paramilitary groups were still active.
The IRA declared a cessation of military operations a few weeks after the crash and this was followed some time later by the others.
Is it normal military practice to carry VIPs in this way? I doubt if many companies would take such a risk with key personnel.
The crew was highly qualified and they had flown in the Mull area previously.
Does it not seem strange that so many top security personnel connected with the problems of Northern Ireland should have been put together on board a Chinook which had had numerous parts replaced in the previous few months and when the IRA and other paramilitary groups were still active.
The IRA declared a cessation of military operations a few weeks after the crash and this was followed some time later by the others.
Is it normal military practice to carry VIPs in this way? I doubt if many companies would take such a risk with key personnel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben Leice
I quite agree that the crew had no reason to climb. I simply point out that such a climb was not possible in order to undermine Wratten's assertion that their failure to do so amounted to negligence.
The destination is interesting but whether it was Macrihanish of Fort George the initial route would have been the same. The investigation was quite rightly focussed only on the crash. Other conspiricy theories only deflect the focus of this campaign.
Speculation as to what occurred in the last minutes of the flight is only that. We will never know what happened any more than Wratten. He CANNOT have 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that these men were negligent; and that is all we need to target at this stage.
I quite agree that the crew had no reason to climb. I simply point out that such a climb was not possible in order to undermine Wratten's assertion that their failure to do so amounted to negligence.
The destination is interesting but whether it was Macrihanish of Fort George the initial route would have been the same. The investigation was quite rightly focussed only on the crash. Other conspiricy theories only deflect the focus of this campaign.
Speculation as to what occurred in the last minutes of the flight is only that. We will never know what happened any more than Wratten. He CANNOT have 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that these men were negligent; and that is all we need to target at this stage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"The destination is interesting but whether it was Macrihanish of Fort George the initial route would have been the same." ... Arkroyal, December 11.
We can't be sure of the initial route because we don't which of the two Chinooks crashed. You may argue that the initial route is also irrelevant but a Chinook approaching the lighthouse from a westerly direction would have been heading towards the high ground whereas the one approaching from a southerly direction should have been more or less heading parallel to the coastline.
"The Chinook gained height a little as it followed the coast beyond Carnlough harbour towards the cliff-top Catholic college of Garron Tower where priests at a conference ran out to see it fly just below them and turn out to sea, aiming slightly to the left, as they thought, of the Mull, only five or 10 minutes before it crashed into those cliffs." ... Lord Rathcavan, House of Lords, 1 Nov. 1999.
We can't be sure of the initial route because we don't which of the two Chinooks crashed. You may argue that the initial route is also irrelevant but a Chinook approaching the lighthouse from a westerly direction would have been heading towards the high ground whereas the one approaching from a southerly direction should have been more or less heading parallel to the coastline.
"The Chinook gained height a little as it followed the coast beyond Carnlough harbour towards the cliff-top Catholic college of Garron Tower where priests at a conference ran out to see it fly just below them and turn out to sea, aiming slightly to the left, as they thought, of the Mull, only five or 10 minutes before it crashed into those cliffs." ... Lord Rathcavan, House of Lords, 1 Nov. 1999.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"He CANNOT have 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that these men were negligent; and that is all we need to target at this stage." ... Arkroyal, Dec 11, 2000.
I agree. However, Lord Chalfont made exactly this point in May 1997 in the House of Lords; he repeated it in Nov 1999 in the House [plus some data on FADEC] and he repeated it again in the Times today. Government spokesmen maintain the same defence - the pilots shouldn't have been where they were. Of course, the Government cannot demonstrate that the pilots were in control.
I agree. However, Lord Chalfont made exactly this point in May 1997 in the House of Lords; he repeated it in Nov 1999 in the House [plus some data on FADEC] and he repeated it again in the Times today. Government spokesmen maintain the same defence - the pilots shouldn't have been where they were. Of course, the Government cannot demonstrate that the pilots were in control.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
welcome to the debate. All points are valid. However, I am confused by some of your theories. This whole issue is about the fact that the Government cannot, and should not support a verdict that is not supported by the evidence on which it is based. Nothing else. This is the basis of the entire campaign. Theorising will do nothing but dilute this campaign.
I am trying to stick to what I believe to be fact (unsupported verdict). To offer a theory is to do exactly what the reviewing officers and the Government(s) have done in reaching this unsafe verdict and, with respect, has little merit in the overall issue.
As I say, your views are entirely valid, but only as your views. However, if you feel a miscarriage of justice has taken place, please contact your MP and the PM direct.
Everyone else
Please note that I'm having problems with my (e-mail) hotmail account. If I have not replied to any recent postings I apologise. (Why have you made computers hate me Lord??)
I will hopefully sort the problem soon and get back to living up to the name of Irritating Sod.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the debate. All points are valid. However, I am confused by some of your theories. This whole issue is about the fact that the Government cannot, and should not support a verdict that is not supported by the evidence on which it is based. Nothing else. This is the basis of the entire campaign. Theorising will do nothing but dilute this campaign.
I am trying to stick to what I believe to be fact (unsupported verdict). To offer a theory is to do exactly what the reviewing officers and the Government(s) have done in reaching this unsafe verdict and, with respect, has little merit in the overall issue.
As I say, your views are entirely valid, but only as your views. However, if you feel a miscarriage of justice has taken place, please contact your MP and the PM direct.
Everyone else
Please note that I'm having problems with my (e-mail) hotmail account. If I have not replied to any recent postings I apologise. (Why have you made computers hate me Lord??)
I will hopefully sort the problem soon and get back to living up to the name of Irritating Sod.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
David Davis, the chairman of the PAC, contacted me this weekend. He's been reading pprune with interest and wanted to clear up a couple of factual points regarding criticism of the PAC report.
********
He Said:
1. Some reports have suggested that the PAC was not equipped to understand the intricacies of the case. The PAC listened to submissions by various experts, about 1000 hours of work was completed by National Audit Office (NAO) satff experienced in dealing with the MoD's introduction of equipment into service.
2. If the MOD had deemed it beneficial, Sir William Wratten could have been seen by the PAC. However, Mr Kevin Tebbit, the Permanent Secretary at the MOD, chose not to bring him to give evidence. Mr Tebbit himself gave most of the argument from the MOD side of things.
3. The PAC is charged with making factual comment. On the evidence presented, it was a FACT, that the verdict of gross negligence had been wrong - there was no data to support it or to eliminate other causes.
4. The Govt can obviously ignore the findings of any PAC report but the findings of 95% of its studies are normally implemented.
***************
I think that the most interesting point is that the MoD chose not to bring Wratten to give his point of view. Now why would that be? Hmmm.
********
He Said:
1. Some reports have suggested that the PAC was not equipped to understand the intricacies of the case. The PAC listened to submissions by various experts, about 1000 hours of work was completed by National Audit Office (NAO) satff experienced in dealing with the MoD's introduction of equipment into service.
2. If the MOD had deemed it beneficial, Sir William Wratten could have been seen by the PAC. However, Mr Kevin Tebbit, the Permanent Secretary at the MOD, chose not to bring him to give evidence. Mr Tebbit himself gave most of the argument from the MOD side of things.
3. The PAC is charged with making factual comment. On the evidence presented, it was a FACT, that the verdict of gross negligence had been wrong - there was no data to support it or to eliminate other causes.
4. The Govt can obviously ignore the findings of any PAC report but the findings of 95% of its studies are normally implemented.
***************
I think that the most interesting point is that the MoD chose not to bring Wratten to give his point of view. Now why would that be? Hmmm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Smooth Approach
The MOD talks about the need for new evidence as the basis for a new inquiry.
Surely, it is both realistic and logical to examine some of the evidence already given, as well as the eye-witness accounts.That has been the main thrust of my contributions.
For example, would it have been possible for a Chinook to get from Aldergrove to the crashsite on the Mull in 17 minutes, a distance I estimated at 48 miles as well as fitting in with the observations of Lord Rathcavan?
In the House of Lords, on 1 Nov 1999, he said, "Higher up the glens it had hedgehopped over farmlands, terrifying animals. Horses at Glenravel belonging to a dentist, Hugh McCann, panicked and had to be taken in.
From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns."
The MOD talks about the need for new evidence as the basis for a new inquiry.
Surely, it is both realistic and logical to examine some of the evidence already given, as well as the eye-witness accounts.That has been the main thrust of my contributions.
For example, would it have been possible for a Chinook to get from Aldergrove to the crashsite on the Mull in 17 minutes, a distance I estimated at 48 miles as well as fitting in with the observations of Lord Rathcavan?
In the House of Lords, on 1 Nov 1999, he said, "Higher up the glens it had hedgehopped over farmlands, terrifying animals. Horses at Glenravel belonging to a dentist, Hugh McCann, panicked and had to be taken in.
From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
As Brian says, your views are as valid as any other.
You have said that the MOD requires new evidence, and I understand that you are trying to provide it.
The cornerstone of this campaign is that it needs no new evidence to show that the finding of negligence was wrong. (see John Nichol's post above re the PAC report). Just because they have rejected the arguement so far does not mean that we have to launch into the fanciful, which, as Brian points out, will simply dilute and obscure the facts.
Given the local wind quoted as 170 degrees at ‘about’ 30 Knots, a groundspeed of 150 knots is easily achievable by the Chinook, so where is the great conspiricy in that?
Jayteeto has given you the reason for the three 'attack' helicopters, yet you choose to ignore his post. The last thing this campaign needs is someone as selective with the evidence (or lack of it) as Wratten was for the other side.
I am glad that Mr. Davis has taken an interest in this site. He must be absolutely fuming to have all that detailed and hard work described by Hoon as 'superficial'. My guess as to why Wratten was not involved, is that the MOD know how unconvincing he is.
(edited for typos)
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 12 December 2000).]
As Brian says, your views are as valid as any other.
You have said that the MOD requires new evidence, and I understand that you are trying to provide it.
The cornerstone of this campaign is that it needs no new evidence to show that the finding of negligence was wrong. (see John Nichol's post above re the PAC report). Just because they have rejected the arguement so far does not mean that we have to launch into the fanciful, which, as Brian points out, will simply dilute and obscure the facts.
Given the local wind quoted as 170 degrees at ‘about’ 30 Knots, a groundspeed of 150 knots is easily achievable by the Chinook, so where is the great conspiricy in that?
Jayteeto has given you the reason for the three 'attack' helicopters, yet you choose to ignore his post. The last thing this campaign needs is someone as selective with the evidence (or lack of it) as Wratten was for the other side.
I am glad that Mr. Davis has taken an interest in this site. He must be absolutely fuming to have all that detailed and hard work described by Hoon as 'superficial'. My guess as to why Wratten was not involved, is that the MOD know how unconvincing he is.
(edited for typos)
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 12 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
jayteeto,
Thanks very much for the info about the three helicopters. Can you - or anyone else - shed some light, please, on the second Chinook which was seen on the North Antrim coast about 5:30 pm that same evening? It was flying very low from a southerly direction.
Thanks very much for the info about the three helicopters. Can you - or anyone else - shed some light, please, on the second Chinook which was seen on the North Antrim coast about 5:30 pm that same evening? It was flying very low from a southerly direction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep, no problems. There was NO second Chinook, if it had been serviceable it would have done the trip (ie a Mk 1) The reason they would have probably detoured was because of very poor weather on the East Antrim coast. Those people who do the job will appreciate how we get around bad weather, we LOOK for a better way through. Sometimes you have to turn back and try again. There was also a strong wind, 150 kt groundspeed is perfectly reasonable for the conditions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree that there is no need to look for new evidence, only for another look at the way the OFFICIAL inquiry was over-ruled by those with a strongly vested interest in the outcome of it.
Messrs Wratten and Day would have been responsible for appointing the members of the BOI, either directly or indirectly. By publically denouncing them on television and in the papers, Wratten has now showed them the same level of support given to the unfortunate crew - Absolutely NIL.
I don't see that there is any point in involving Mr. Wratten in any further discussions. He is not man enough to admit he has made a mistake. He has strongly re-iterated his opinions on a number of occasions and it would appear he has no intention of changing them. By offering discussion he possibly seeks only to attempt to more widely ratify his view-point.
Messrs Wratten and Day would have been responsible for appointing the members of the BOI, either directly or indirectly. By publically denouncing them on television and in the papers, Wratten has now showed them the same level of support given to the unfortunate crew - Absolutely NIL.
I don't see that there is any point in involving Mr. Wratten in any further discussions. He is not man enough to admit he has made a mistake. He has strongly re-iterated his opinions on a number of occasions and it would appear he has no intention of changing them. By offering discussion he possibly seeks only to attempt to more widely ratify his view-point.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The irritating sod is back!!
Just to let everyone know that my Hotmail account is back up and running.
Any time you are ready, Mr Wratten!!
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just to let everyone know that my Hotmail account is back up and running.
Any time you are ready, Mr Wratten!!
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jayteeto
Chinook #1 was reported leaving Aldergrove at 5:42 pm and was seen meandering down a glen to Carnlough on the east Antrim coast, past Garron Point and on towards the western side of the Mull.
Chinook #2 was seen about 5:30 pm flying low, in a northerly direction, across the road from Coleraine to Bushmills on the north Antrim coast and skimming over the high ground to the west side of Dunmull. Its camouflage was a fairly sharp patchwork-quilt effect. It may not have taken off from Aldergrove.
Chinook #1 was reported leaving Aldergrove at 5:42 pm and was seen meandering down a glen to Carnlough on the east Antrim coast, past Garron Point and on towards the western side of the Mull.
Chinook #2 was seen about 5:30 pm flying low, in a northerly direction, across the road from Coleraine to Bushmills on the north Antrim coast and skimming over the high ground to the west side of Dunmull. Its camouflage was a fairly sharp patchwork-quilt effect. It may not have taken off from Aldergrove.
Guest
Posts: n/a
rivets - interesting link.
What if Dr Gadian's theory were correct (and it would be difficult to establish the exact details after all this time), would Bill Wratten admit there was now sufficient doubt to quash his decision?
I'm sure I did lessons on wind-shear, albeit in relation to the jetstream and CBs, in 1982. I seem to recall that a Japanese airliner had it's wings sheared off after it was homed to the middle of a CB that the crew thought was a NDB. Wind-shear is a very dangerous thing that makes life awfully bumpy and occasionally terminal. As Neil Tweedie's article says, a helicopter in such conditions would be in a very poor state.
I still don't think that there's sufficient evidence for Wratten's decision anyway, and Brian is right to urge us to be focussed, but additional information that would allow the airships another get out is always useful.
What if Dr Gadian's theory were correct (and it would be difficult to establish the exact details after all this time), would Bill Wratten admit there was now sufficient doubt to quash his decision?
I'm sure I did lessons on wind-shear, albeit in relation to the jetstream and CBs, in 1982. I seem to recall that a Japanese airliner had it's wings sheared off after it was homed to the middle of a CB that the crew thought was a NDB. Wind-shear is a very dangerous thing that makes life awfully bumpy and occasionally terminal. As Neil Tweedie's article says, a helicopter in such conditions would be in a very poor state.
I still don't think that there's sufficient evidence for Wratten's decision anyway, and Brian is right to urge us to be focussed, but additional information that would allow the airships another get out is always useful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having recently met the good Dr in question purely by circumstance, I can state without fear of contradiction that his multi-dimensional wind shear analysis and rotor streaming work is world leading, extremely analytical and involves some very complex computer work. If he says that the windflow effects near the Mull could be significant, then there is probably no-one sufficiently qualified to challenge his opinion anywhere in the UK. This is a hugely important development and one which Brian should investigate with some urgency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Rivets,
I'm making attempts to make contact with the good doctor. Should anyone have chance to meet him, please pass my e-mail address to him and ask that he contacts me.
I trust the Air Marshals and Ministers will also be taking an interest!!
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'm making attempts to make contact with the good doctor. Should anyone have chance to meet him, please pass my e-mail address to him and ask that he contacts me.
I trust the Air Marshals and Ministers will also be taking an interest!!
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
You could try [email protected]
If you would like to read about the crash of a microlight due to turbulence on the north coast of County Antrim in June 1999 look at
<A HREF="http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm</A>
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 13 December 2000).]
If you would like to read about the crash of a microlight due to turbulence on the north coast of County Antrim in June 1999 look at
<A HREF="http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/mar00htm/gbvna.htm</A>
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 13 December 2000).]