Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben
Trust me when I tell you that people make things up, either because they think they are being helpful eyewitnesses or more usually because they are trying to claim for damages from the MOD.
I have on numerous occasions been contacted by the flying complaints branch because a member of the public has reported that a Chinook had flown over their property and caused damage. On some occasions a Chinook had been in the area, on other occasions there was none and the Chinook had actually been something else. People may hear a helicopter and assume its one thing, when actually it isn't. There are times when even my sensitve and seasoned ears cannot tell the difference between different aircraft types.
To add weight to my argument, following landing at my home base recently, I was informed that SAR Ops had been on for me as a member of the public had reported to the police that she had seen a Chinook crash with smoke coming from the area. At no time did the eyewitness mention the second aircraft that I was in formation with and only a 100 metres away. I guess she thought that she was helping!!
Ben there is no conspiracy in this case, just injustice. Don't cloud the main issue with irrelevancies.
HPT
Trust me when I tell you that people make things up, either because they think they are being helpful eyewitnesses or more usually because they are trying to claim for damages from the MOD.
I have on numerous occasions been contacted by the flying complaints branch because a member of the public has reported that a Chinook had flown over their property and caused damage. On some occasions a Chinook had been in the area, on other occasions there was none and the Chinook had actually been something else. People may hear a helicopter and assume its one thing, when actually it isn't. There are times when even my sensitve and seasoned ears cannot tell the difference between different aircraft types.
To add weight to my argument, following landing at my home base recently, I was informed that SAR Ops had been on for me as a member of the public had reported to the police that she had seen a Chinook crash with smoke coming from the area. At no time did the eyewitness mention the second aircraft that I was in formation with and only a 100 metres away. I guess she thought that she was helping!!
Ben there is no conspiracy in this case, just injustice. Don't cloud the main issue with irrelevancies.
HPT
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh and I forgot Ben
MK2 Chinooks did not have patchwork quilt camo, not then, not now.
And without trying to turn this into a p1551ng contest, there is no problem flying through mountainous areas, even in bad weather, as long as the valleys are clear, which you never know until you've had a look.
HPT
MK2 Chinooks did not have patchwork quilt camo, not then, not now.
And without trying to turn this into a p1551ng contest, there is no problem flying through mountainous areas, even in bad weather, as long as the valleys are clear, which you never know until you've had a look.
HPT
Guest
Posts: n/a
HPT
Perhaps we can let history take care of 'irrelevancies'. By the way, two of the eyewitnesses were beside each other as the Chinook passed over in a northerly direction; their position was roughly two hundred yards to the west. The sky was relatively dark for the time of year - there had been heavy rain about an hour earlier - but the markings were fairly clear.
Thanks for the info about camouflage. That eliminates an RAF Chinook Mark 2 as a candidate for the second Chinook.
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 02 January 2001).]
Perhaps we can let history take care of 'irrelevancies'. By the way, two of the eyewitnesses were beside each other as the Chinook passed over in a northerly direction; their position was roughly two hundred yards to the west. The sky was relatively dark for the time of year - there had been heavy rain about an hour earlier - but the markings were fairly clear.
Thanks for the info about camouflage. That eliminates an RAF Chinook Mark 2 as a candidate for the second Chinook.
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 02 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
On a more constructive note - I have finally received a reply from my Labour MP (who had the good grace to apologise for the delay). He says:
"I have immediately taken up your specific concerns with the Secretary of State and will come back to you as soon as I have his response to them."
I'll let you know ...
"I have immediately taken up your specific concerns with the Secretary of State and will come back to you as soon as I have his response to them."
I'll let you know ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Greetings Ben,
With the greatest of respect it doesn't really matter if ZD576 was a mile right or left of track. The "track" is just a line plotted on a map, when flying VFR one does not stick rigidly to that line. You can wander left and right as the terrain and weather dictate.
Re the 3rd Senior Officer - not sure who you mean but if you give me a page number in "Pheonix" I'll try to work it out. I suspect that Susan Pheonix was refering to one of the Station commanders.
Happy New Year All
PS. Just had a letter from AVM Roser, Chairman of the RAF Club, saying that he has had a complaint that I used the RAF Club as a contact address in my letter to the Times. Now who might be the complainer?
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 03 January 2001).]
With the greatest of respect it doesn't really matter if ZD576 was a mile right or left of track. The "track" is just a line plotted on a map, when flying VFR one does not stick rigidly to that line. You can wander left and right as the terrain and weather dictate.
Re the 3rd Senior Officer - not sure who you mean but if you give me a page number in "Pheonix" I'll try to work it out. I suspect that Susan Pheonix was refering to one of the Station commanders.
Happy New Year All
PS. Just had a letter from AVM Roser, Chairman of the RAF Club, saying that he has had a complaint that I used the RAF Club as a contact address in my letter to the Times. Now who might be the complainer?
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 03 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I was always led to believe that, assuming you are a member of the RAF Club (or indeed any private club I would suggest), it is perfectly acceptable to use that clubs address in your correspondence.
Dare I say it I also remember being told of the days when all RAF officers had "business" (ie calling) cards. On arrival at a new station, you always left a copy of said card on the table in the entrance hall of the Officers Mess. These always (I believe) had the RAF Club printed as the address. This started to go out of fashion in the mid 70's but surely still within the time frame of a certain senior officers career.
Obviously some people are just not busy enough in their new jobs !!!
TL
[This message has been edited by Titan Locked (edited 03 January 2001).]
Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I was always led to believe that, assuming you are a member of the RAF Club (or indeed any private club I would suggest), it is perfectly acceptable to use that clubs address in your correspondence.
Dare I say it I also remember being told of the days when all RAF officers had "business" (ie calling) cards. On arrival at a new station, you always left a copy of said card on the table in the entrance hall of the Officers Mess. These always (I believe) had the RAF Club printed as the address. This started to go out of fashion in the mid 70's but surely still within the time frame of a certain senior officers career.
Obviously some people are just not busy enough in their new jobs !!!
TL
[This message has been edited by Titan Locked (edited 03 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear John,
With similar respect, I described the situation of lateral displacement with reference to the lighthouse, where terrain and visibility were very relevant. It certainly was of concern to the Scottish sheriff ["Phoenix" p 250] and may have led to the crash.
"In contrast two of the three senior RAF officers who appended remarks to the main body of the board's conclusions were harsh in their assessments of who was at fault" [Phoenix p243] This suggests to me that three RAF officers appended comments; perhaps I've misunderstood the sentence or the author has made a mistake or has badly worded the sentence.
With similar respect, I described the situation of lateral displacement with reference to the lighthouse, where terrain and visibility were very relevant. It certainly was of concern to the Scottish sheriff ["Phoenix" p 250] and may have led to the crash.
"In contrast two of the three senior RAF officers who appended remarks to the main body of the board's conclusions were harsh in their assessments of who was at fault" [Phoenix p243] This suggests to me that three RAF officers appended comments; perhaps I've misunderstood the sentence or the author has made a mistake or has badly worded the sentence.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not to print all four names here. E-Mail me and I'll let you have them.
Perhaps I'm a little over cautious, but I don't want to score an own goal at this stage!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not to print all four names here. E-Mail me and I'll let you have them.
Perhaps I'm a little over cautious, but I don't want to score an own goal at this stage!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
I too find the argument regarding ‘the second Chinook’ rather baffling and irrelevant. The point is that ZD576 hit the Mull, and its pilots were found guilty of gross negligence despite a total lack of evidence to support the finding, which needed to be proven ‘beyond any doubt whatsoever’.
The fact that the yachtsman could see the lighthouse does not mean necessarily that the crew could see it from their different viewpoint. Judging visibility or the presence of cloud over the sea is extremely difficult as the cloud will be patchy, and visibility judgement requires something of known size to give scale.
Four senior officers commented upon the BOI report, as mrploppy points out. AMs Day and Wratten, whose crystal balls allowed them to perform the hatchet job, and the two Station Commanders who, I believe, were rather more objective.
The fact that the yachtsman could see the lighthouse does not mean necessarily that the crew could see it from their different viewpoint. Judging visibility or the presence of cloud over the sea is extremely difficult as the cloud will be patchy, and visibility judgement requires something of known size to give scale.
Four senior officers commented upon the BOI report, as mrploppy points out. AMs Day and Wratten, whose crystal balls allowed them to perform the hatchet job, and the two Station Commanders who, I believe, were rather more objective.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
Please don't misunderstand the tone of the question but could you give us an idea of your background? I ask because if you are not aircrew I will try to explain how pilots fly VFR. I can assure you that they do not use "sophisticated navigation equipment" to miss the lumpy stuff by a few hundred yards. (Unless you fly GR1 or GR4 of course). You use your eyes.
Whether the Chinook was a few yards left or right of a line on a piece of paper really had no relevance in this accident.
Regarding the reporting chain for the BoI:
Neither OC Aldergrove or OC Odiham could offer further explanation of the crash. They did put a different emphasis on some of the BoI's findings but neither passed a verdict of gross negligence on the pilots. AVM Day was the first to do this followed by Wratten.
Please don't misunderstand the tone of the question but could you give us an idea of your background? I ask because if you are not aircrew I will try to explain how pilots fly VFR. I can assure you that they do not use "sophisticated navigation equipment" to miss the lumpy stuff by a few hundred yards. (Unless you fly GR1 or GR4 of course). You use your eyes.
Whether the Chinook was a few yards left or right of a line on a piece of paper really had no relevance in this accident.
Regarding the reporting chain for the BoI:
Neither OC Aldergrove or OC Odiham could offer further explanation of the crash. They did put a different emphasis on some of the BoI's findings but neither passed a verdict of gross negligence on the pilots. AVM Day was the first to do this followed by Wratten.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has Parliament been misled by Government spokesmen? Have ministers been economical with the actuality? Have ministers been misled by a lack of information from their officials? Could a possible serious injustice have been averted?
The Board had been careful not to point the finger of blame at the pilots; it merely concluded that there might have been errors of judgement during the flight but the available evidence did not justify criticism, let alone a more serious charge. Were the President's conclusions given to Parliament?
The Scottish sheriff was perplexed as to why the Chinook was where it was when it was and the RAF wing commander could not offer an explanation. Were the sheriff's conclusions given to Parliament?
Was Parliament told that the Board's report was reviewed by four senior RAF officers and that just two of them apportioned blame? One officer accused a pilot of a failure of duty; a second concluded that the crew were guilty of gross negligence; a third said that the Chinook crashed in an unrecognisable way but did not blame the pilots; and the fourth did not blame the pilots. Have the reviewing officers normally more say than the Board itself?
If ministers and Parliament had been in full possession of this information would we be in the current sorry state of affairs?
The Board had been careful not to point the finger of blame at the pilots; it merely concluded that there might have been errors of judgement during the flight but the available evidence did not justify criticism, let alone a more serious charge. Were the President's conclusions given to Parliament?
The Scottish sheriff was perplexed as to why the Chinook was where it was when it was and the RAF wing commander could not offer an explanation. Were the sheriff's conclusions given to Parliament?
Was Parliament told that the Board's report was reviewed by four senior RAF officers and that just two of them apportioned blame? One officer accused a pilot of a failure of duty; a second concluded that the crew were guilty of gross negligence; a third said that the Chinook crashed in an unrecognisable way but did not blame the pilots; and the fourth did not blame the pilots. Have the reviewing officers normally more say than the Board itself?
If ministers and Parliament had been in full possession of this information would we be in the current sorry state of affairs?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the offer, John - I'm not aircrew.
Assuming the Chinook which crashed took the route via Carnlough, what would you have done after you passed Garron Point? They were just over twenty miles from the lighthouse on the Mull and it would have been visible on a clear day. On June 2, the top of the Mull was covered by localised thick mist. The priests at Garron Tower saw the Chinook heading towards the west side of the Mull.
Assuming the Chinook which crashed took the route via Carnlough, what would you have done after you passed Garron Point? They were just over twenty miles from the lighthouse on the Mull and it would have been visible on a clear day. On June 2, the top of the Mull was covered by localised thick mist. The priests at Garron Tower saw the Chinook heading towards the west side of the Mull.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
Although I appreciate that your posts are keeping this thread near the top of the list, they aren't (in my admittedly-selfish opinion) actually contributing anything to righting the miscarriage of justice - the reason the whole thing was started. If you'd like to open another thread to discuss VFR nav techniques or unusual camouflage schemes, or to speculate on the intentions of Jon's crew after the TP, you'd have my gratitude. Many of the answers to questions you've asked in the past are available in publications other than the Phoenix book, by the way - you might wish to expand your reading list. Perhaps start with the BoI report and work from there...
Regards,
T&B
Although I appreciate that your posts are keeping this thread near the top of the list, they aren't (in my admittedly-selfish opinion) actually contributing anything to righting the miscarriage of justice - the reason the whole thing was started. If you'd like to open another thread to discuss VFR nav techniques or unusual camouflage schemes, or to speculate on the intentions of Jon's crew after the TP, you'd have my gratitude. Many of the answers to questions you've asked in the past are available in publications other than the Phoenix book, by the way - you might wish to expand your reading list. Perhaps start with the BoI report and work from there...
Regards,
T&B
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Davis, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is, I think, a little frustrated with the speed by which some ministers responded to the 45th report. Here's a direct lift from the Parliament site:
"However, in recent weeks we have seen Ministers rush to judgment, either misrepresenting the Committee's findings or taking issue with agreed facts. Recently, our estimate of deaths from hospital-acquired infections has been disputed, despite the fact that the Department's accounting officer had already agreed the figure with the National Audit Office.
A similar incident occurred following publication of our recent 45th report on the acceptance into service of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter and the crash of one of those helicopters on the Mull of Kintyre, when Defence Ministers reacted hastily and negatively. That report formed part of our wider study of the MOD's acceptance of equipment off-contract and into service, which formed the 44th report, and both reports were issued simultaneously.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): May I say how much my constituents and I welcomed the 45th report, as the Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD could set aside the verdict of gross negligence on the part of the two pilots? The MOD need not admit that it was wrong, but new rules now cover boards of inquiry and it should lay the matter to rest and get rid of the very unfair and unjust verdict, which the report highlighted.
Mr. Davis: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I return to her question in about 30 seconds, when I have finished the thrust of my current argument.
The Committee deliberated long and hard on the Chinook incident and amassed a significant body of evidence, mostly from the MOD, to support the conclusions that we reached. We aimed not to establish the truth of what happened--which is unknowable--but to point to the severe weaknesses in the processes by which the MOD accepted those helicopters into service and the subsequent procedures by which they concluded that the fault for the crash lay with the pilots. The immediate public response from Ministers was a discourtesy to the Committee, prejudices the Government's considered response and, in my view, flies in the face of the agreed convention.
On the hon. Lady's specific point, we do not seek to lay blame anywhere. It is perfectly possible for the Government to set aside the verdict. Ministers then in the
14 Dec 2000 : Column 836
Department accepted that as the right route, and other experts--whether those involved in the fatal accident inquiry or in aeronautics generally--all think that the verdict is unsafe. None of us seeks to score points; we want a matter of honour to be put right and the system corrected for the future. So I agree with what the hon. Lady has said.
One Minister even suggested that the PAC was acting beyond its remit. I have three responses to that suggestion. First, it is for the House of Commons and the Committee to decide our remit, not for Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round. Secondly, the investigation arose from a study of the badly managed introduction into service of the £140 million upgrade that created the mark 2 Chinook. After six years in development and three years in production, that helicopter was still having erratic engine-control software problems during flight testing. As a consequence, its operational capacity was restricted for more than four years after the Mull of Kintyre crash.
Similarly, the Committee concluded that the accident investigation procedure was flawed, and therefore could not guarantee to deliver the lessons necessary to enhance future safety and performance. Those matters clearly all come within the Committee's remit. Finally, in the midst of that assessment of performance, the Committee was faced with what we unanimously thought to be a serious risk of an injustice. In my view, not only is it the right of any parliamentary Committee to bring injustice to the public's attention; it is the duty of any parliamentarian to do so."
So I can't be accused of selective quotation, here's the full link to the site-
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/cm001214/debtext/01214-12.htm#01214-12_spnew1
Phew!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
"However, in recent weeks we have seen Ministers rush to judgment, either misrepresenting the Committee's findings or taking issue with agreed facts. Recently, our estimate of deaths from hospital-acquired infections has been disputed, despite the fact that the Department's accounting officer had already agreed the figure with the National Audit Office.
A similar incident occurred following publication of our recent 45th report on the acceptance into service of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter and the crash of one of those helicopters on the Mull of Kintyre, when Defence Ministers reacted hastily and negatively. That report formed part of our wider study of the MOD's acceptance of equipment off-contract and into service, which formed the 44th report, and both reports were issued simultaneously.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): May I say how much my constituents and I welcomed the 45th report, as the Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD could set aside the verdict of gross negligence on the part of the two pilots? The MOD need not admit that it was wrong, but new rules now cover boards of inquiry and it should lay the matter to rest and get rid of the very unfair and unjust verdict, which the report highlighted.
Mr. Davis: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I return to her question in about 30 seconds, when I have finished the thrust of my current argument.
The Committee deliberated long and hard on the Chinook incident and amassed a significant body of evidence, mostly from the MOD, to support the conclusions that we reached. We aimed not to establish the truth of what happened--which is unknowable--but to point to the severe weaknesses in the processes by which the MOD accepted those helicopters into service and the subsequent procedures by which they concluded that the fault for the crash lay with the pilots. The immediate public response from Ministers was a discourtesy to the Committee, prejudices the Government's considered response and, in my view, flies in the face of the agreed convention.
On the hon. Lady's specific point, we do not seek to lay blame anywhere. It is perfectly possible for the Government to set aside the verdict. Ministers then in the
14 Dec 2000 : Column 836
Department accepted that as the right route, and other experts--whether those involved in the fatal accident inquiry or in aeronautics generally--all think that the verdict is unsafe. None of us seeks to score points; we want a matter of honour to be put right and the system corrected for the future. So I agree with what the hon. Lady has said.
One Minister even suggested that the PAC was acting beyond its remit. I have three responses to that suggestion. First, it is for the House of Commons and the Committee to decide our remit, not for Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round. Secondly, the investigation arose from a study of the badly managed introduction into service of the £140 million upgrade that created the mark 2 Chinook. After six years in development and three years in production, that helicopter was still having erratic engine-control software problems during flight testing. As a consequence, its operational capacity was restricted for more than four years after the Mull of Kintyre crash.
Similarly, the Committee concluded that the accident investigation procedure was flawed, and therefore could not guarantee to deliver the lessons necessary to enhance future safety and performance. Those matters clearly all come within the Committee's remit. Finally, in the midst of that assessment of performance, the Committee was faced with what we unanimously thought to be a serious risk of an injustice. In my view, not only is it the right of any parliamentary Committee to bring injustice to the public's attention; it is the duty of any parliamentarian to do so."
So I can't be accused of selective quotation, here's the full link to the site-
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/cm001214/debtext/01214-12.htm#01214-12_spnew1
Phew!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Brian, nice to know that the PAC aren't taking Bufhoon's trite response lying down.
Still no response from my letter to Biar (passed to Hoon) or the one to Hoon himself.
If the PAC can be held in such contempt by theis twit, then what chance have we ordinary folk?
Collating all the latest stuff to make another attempt to galvanise my MP, althouigh I fear that the second coming is more likely.
Nice to see that others are having more luck.
Agree with T&B re the arguements concerning VFR flight.
Just to assist (maybe), had I been flying this sortie I'd have used the Mull as W/P 1 and once visual with it, followed the west coast around to Corran W/P 2 (as selected by The crew, and in no way implying any intention to fly direct routes to and between W/Ps), and then up the great Glen to Inverness.
Still no response from my letter to Biar (passed to Hoon) or the one to Hoon himself.
If the PAC can be held in such contempt by theis twit, then what chance have we ordinary folk?
Collating all the latest stuff to make another attempt to galvanise my MP, althouigh I fear that the second coming is more likely.
Nice to see that others are having more luck.
Agree with T&B re the arguements concerning VFR flight.
Just to assist (maybe), had I been flying this sortie I'd have used the Mull as W/P 1 and once visual with it, followed the west coast around to Corran W/P 2 (as selected by The crew, and in no way implying any intention to fly direct routes to and between W/Ps), and then up the great Glen to Inverness.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yesterday's post brought my long awaited response from Hoon, to my letter to his boss which I also copied to him. The response was obviously not from the great man himself but emanated from Air Staff 3a(Secretariat).
From: Miss V L U Directorate of Air Staff 3a(Secretariat)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 7249, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SWIA 2HB
Mr Stiknruda
Aileron Farm
Elevatasville
Norfolk
Dear Stiknruda
Thank you for copying your letter of 4 December to the Defence Secretary about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June l~94. Your letter has been passed to this Branch for response as we have responsibility for this matter.
Your letter was prompted by the media coverage following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) 45th Report on the acceptance of the Chinook Mark 2 into service, which links problems experienced during the Chinook acceptance process to the Mull of Kintyre accident. The MOD had early sight of this PAC report and we were disappointed to find that the Committee had accepted comprehensive and detailed briefing from those campaigning to overturn the finding of the Board of Inquiry into the Mull accident. We will respond formally to the specific points raised by the Committee on the acceptance of the Chinook Mk2, but do not accept the statements about the Board of Inquiry verdict. The PAC report contains no new evidence, and its conclusions run contrary to those reached by the Defence Committee that there was no compelling evidence of fundamental flaws in the in the design of the Chinook or its components.
I can understand that you find it difficult to accept that two experienced and well-trained pilots might have been to blame for this accident, but it is a sad fact that accidents do happen to even the most competent aircrew. Often, it only takes a momentary lapse but the situation cannot be recovered, particularly when flying at low level.
I can assure you that Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day had no involvement in the release of the Chinook MK 2 to service and I hope it will help if I explain why they reached the conclusions that they did about the cause of the accident. Investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, carried out a detailed independent technical investigation for the Inquiry and concluded that there was no evidence of any technical malfunction that could possibly have caused the crash. However the Board of Inquiry established that about twenty seconds before the crash, the crew re-set their navigational computer, a telling indicator that they were not then grappling with an in-flight emergency as subsequent media speculation has suggested. Having studied a wealth of detailed evidence, the two senior reviewing officers reluctantly concluded that the two pilots had broken the basic rules of airmanship. They continued to fly their aircraft towards the Mull, below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather, which they had been warned to expect. In allowing their aircraft to do this, the pilots had not exercised the skill, care orjudgement they were known to possess, and so they were held to be negligent.
The MOD has always said that if new evidence were to come to light, it would be examined with scrupulous care, thoroughness and compassion. To date we have seen nothing that causes us to doubt the integrity of the verdict of the RAE Board of Inquiry, or would prompt us to hold a new Inquiry.
I hope this explains the position
Yours sincerely
V U
----------------------
Unsurprisingly there appear to be several inconsistencies/irrelevancies in the above letter. Notably, resposibility for release into service, resetting the S-TANS, safe altitude in unsuitable weather, etc. I have asked Brian to assist with a response to ensure that focus remains on the key elements.
Yours
sNr
From: Miss V L U Directorate of Air Staff 3a(Secretariat)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 7249, Main Building, Whitehall, London, SWIA 2HB
Mr Stiknruda
Aileron Farm
Elevatasville
Norfolk
Dear Stiknruda
Thank you for copying your letter of 4 December to the Defence Secretary about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June l~94. Your letter has been passed to this Branch for response as we have responsibility for this matter.
Your letter was prompted by the media coverage following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) 45th Report on the acceptance of the Chinook Mark 2 into service, which links problems experienced during the Chinook acceptance process to the Mull of Kintyre accident. The MOD had early sight of this PAC report and we were disappointed to find that the Committee had accepted comprehensive and detailed briefing from those campaigning to overturn the finding of the Board of Inquiry into the Mull accident. We will respond formally to the specific points raised by the Committee on the acceptance of the Chinook Mk2, but do not accept the statements about the Board of Inquiry verdict. The PAC report contains no new evidence, and its conclusions run contrary to those reached by the Defence Committee that there was no compelling evidence of fundamental flaws in the in the design of the Chinook or its components.
I can understand that you find it difficult to accept that two experienced and well-trained pilots might have been to blame for this accident, but it is a sad fact that accidents do happen to even the most competent aircrew. Often, it only takes a momentary lapse but the situation cannot be recovered, particularly when flying at low level.
I can assure you that Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day had no involvement in the release of the Chinook MK 2 to service and I hope it will help if I explain why they reached the conclusions that they did about the cause of the accident. Investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, carried out a detailed independent technical investigation for the Inquiry and concluded that there was no evidence of any technical malfunction that could possibly have caused the crash. However the Board of Inquiry established that about twenty seconds before the crash, the crew re-set their navigational computer, a telling indicator that they were not then grappling with an in-flight emergency as subsequent media speculation has suggested. Having studied a wealth of detailed evidence, the two senior reviewing officers reluctantly concluded that the two pilots had broken the basic rules of airmanship. They continued to fly their aircraft towards the Mull, below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather, which they had been warned to expect. In allowing their aircraft to do this, the pilots had not exercised the skill, care orjudgement they were known to possess, and so they were held to be negligent.
The MOD has always said that if new evidence were to come to light, it would be examined with scrupulous care, thoroughness and compassion. To date we have seen nothing that causes us to doubt the integrity of the verdict of the RAE Board of Inquiry, or would prompt us to hold a new Inquiry.
I hope this explains the position
Yours sincerely
V U
----------------------
Unsurprisingly there appear to be several inconsistencies/irrelevancies in the above letter. Notably, resposibility for release into service, resetting the S-TANS, safe altitude in unsuitable weather, etc. I have asked Brian to assist with a response to ensure that focus remains on the key elements.
Yours
sNr
Guest
Posts: n/a
How could they deduct that the navigational computer had been re-set 20 secs before the crash ? Is it possible to "read" what the crew had done post-incident when there was no CVR or flight data recording ?
Apologies if this has been covered before.
Apologies if this has been covered before.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I, too, had a banal reply from the said Secretariat. This was in response to my letter to BLiar, which had been forwarded on to the MOD.
The letter mostly regurgitated what we have all heard before from. However, in my letter I had made the point that as the MOD had, once again, procured an aircraft without either CVR or FDR no-one will ever know what happened in the final moments of the flight in question. The MOD response was that the Chinook was procured in the 1980s when it was not the Department's policy to fit the said devices. I did think about writing back to make the point that it would have been prudent to include fitment of a CVR and FDR during the upgrade to Chinook Mk 2. However I felt that this would divert attention from the fundamental point - AS NO-ONE WILL EVER KNOW PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED, HOW CAN ANYONE AFFIRM WITH ABSOLUELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE CREW WERE CULPABLY NEGLIGENT?
This "verdict" would not stand up in a court of law and MUST be overturned!
The letter mostly regurgitated what we have all heard before from. However, in my letter I had made the point that as the MOD had, once again, procured an aircraft without either CVR or FDR no-one will ever know what happened in the final moments of the flight in question. The MOD response was that the Chinook was procured in the 1980s when it was not the Department's policy to fit the said devices. I did think about writing back to make the point that it would have been prudent to include fitment of a CVR and FDR during the upgrade to Chinook Mk 2. However I felt that this would divert attention from the fundamental point - AS NO-ONE WILL EVER KNOW PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED, HOW CAN ANYONE AFFIRM WITH ABSOLUELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE CREW WERE CULPABLY NEGLIGENT?
This "verdict" would not stand up in a court of law and MUST be overturned!