Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
Having come from the Senior Service I know less about the accident than many. My back ground 20 years, most service types, A1 Cat and one of very few Master Pilots. It is morally wrong, given the many possibilities to find men who have died on duty negligent without clear and irrefutable evidence.
In terms of your research, before this accident I flew a rescue sortie recovering Gurkas and the crew from a crash on West Falklands. It struck me at the time that Chinook procedures and training may leave a few gaps when considering the mission and appaling weather.
Having come from the Senior Service I know less about the accident than many. My back ground 20 years, most service types, A1 Cat and one of very few Master Pilots. It is morally wrong, given the many possibilities to find men who have died on duty negligent without clear and irrefutable evidence.
In terms of your research, before this accident I flew a rescue sortie recovering Gurkas and the crew from a crash on West Falklands. It struck me at the time that Chinook procedures and training may leave a few gaps when considering the mission and appaling weather.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Finally in receipt of a reply to my letter of 2 Dec 00. Not much of a reply but I get the distinct feeling that I am getting on someone's nerves! Here's the main body of the reply:
"Thank you for your letter of 2 December to the Prime Minister, and of 6 November to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As you are aware, this Branch of the Ministry of Defence has responsibility for this matter. Your letters have been passed to us, and my letter is to be taken as a reply to both of them.
The accident and conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry have, and continue to be, the subject of much attention, and you have received letters from officials on a number of occasions which I believe address the points raised in your latest letters. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what has been said before.
Further, I understand that the Armed Forces Minister has written to you recently regarding the Public Accounts Committee 45th Report on the Acceptance into Service of the Chinook Mk2 helicopter. The Minister also took the opportunity to re-state the Government’s position, which is that, to date, nothing has been seen that causes us to doubt the integrity of the RAF Board of Inquiry finding, or would prompt us to hold a new Inquiry, including material posted on the “pprune” website you referred to in your letter to the Prime Minister. Of course, were new evidence to come to light it would, as we have said before, be examined with scrupulous care and thoroughness."
They've now reached the 'let's not talk to him anymore stage' I think. Unfortunately, there will be another letter with some more questions in the post this week. Updates as and when.
With regard to the latest Mull Group meeting, there is little to report at the moment (sorry). It was more of a strategic plan meeting. I will however, keep my ear to the ground and update you all as and when.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 03 February 2001).]
"Thank you for your letter of 2 December to the Prime Minister, and of 6 November to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. As you are aware, this Branch of the Ministry of Defence has responsibility for this matter. Your letters have been passed to us, and my letter is to be taken as a reply to both of them.
The accident and conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry have, and continue to be, the subject of much attention, and you have received letters from officials on a number of occasions which I believe address the points raised in your latest letters. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what has been said before.
Further, I understand that the Armed Forces Minister has written to you recently regarding the Public Accounts Committee 45th Report on the Acceptance into Service of the Chinook Mk2 helicopter. The Minister also took the opportunity to re-state the Government’s position, which is that, to date, nothing has been seen that causes us to doubt the integrity of the RAF Board of Inquiry finding, or would prompt us to hold a new Inquiry, including material posted on the “pprune” website you referred to in your letter to the Prime Minister. Of course, were new evidence to come to light it would, as we have said before, be examined with scrupulous care and thoroughness."
They've now reached the 'let's not talk to him anymore stage' I think. Unfortunately, there will be another letter with some more questions in the post this week. Updates as and when.
With regard to the latest Mull Group meeting, there is little to report at the moment (sorry). It was more of a strategic plan meeting. I will however, keep my ear to the ground and update you all as and when.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
805, this is 788. I couldn't agree with you more regarding the burden of proof which must be established before such a verdict is pronounced!!
Chris Kebab; if it's the accident I'm thinking of, involving an ex-JP QFI who was at Leeming in 1974-5, then the accident was hardly surprising. Whilst it may be distasteful to criticise the deceased, the pilot I am thinking of was an accident waiting to happen. Flagrant disregard of low-flying orders, unauthorised low-level aeros....I haven't been scared often in the last 33 years of flying, but I was petrified when I saw the 'Buttertubs' of Yorkshire flashing past 50' away. ABOVE the canopy of our inverted JP5.......in those days, we couldn't say anything for fear of the chop!
The Chinook accident is NOT in this category!!
PS - The certificate signed by The Grand Master of The Guild confers upon one the status of Master Air Pilot, not 'Master Pilot'. Which is an obsolete RAF Master Aircrew rank.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 03 February 2001).]
Chris Kebab; if it's the accident I'm thinking of, involving an ex-JP QFI who was at Leeming in 1974-5, then the accident was hardly surprising. Whilst it may be distasteful to criticise the deceased, the pilot I am thinking of was an accident waiting to happen. Flagrant disregard of low-flying orders, unauthorised low-level aeros....I haven't been scared often in the last 33 years of flying, but I was petrified when I saw the 'Buttertubs' of Yorkshire flashing past 50' away. ABOVE the canopy of our inverted JP5.......in those days, we couldn't say anything for fear of the chop!
The Chinook accident is NOT in this category!!
PS - The certificate signed by The Grand Master of The Guild confers upon one the status of Master Air Pilot, not 'Master Pilot'. Which is an obsolete RAF Master Aircrew rank.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a thought (first in ages).
Anyone interested in a specific Chinook room on the chat part of the site? If so, I'll contact Danny.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Anyone interested in a specific Chinook room on the chat part of the site? If so, I'll contact Danny.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
I get quite a few e-mails of support and sight of different letters with regard to the Chinook crash. Below is a copy of the body of a letter sent to Mr Turnill by Minister Spellar. What an interesting comment he makes about the BoI having more technical and operational expertise available to it than the Fatal Accident Inquiry. Why???
"Thank you for your letter of 9th January to Geoff Hoon enclosing an e-mail from your constituent Mr Bill Turnill about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Mr Turnill appears to be disappointed that no action has been taken to review the finding of gross negligence against the Chinook pilots. However, I can assure you that the investigation following the accident could not have been more thorough, but revealed no evidence of any technical malfunction. the reviewing officers considered all the circumstances of the flight, its planning and execution, the weather conditions and the serviceability of the aircraft, before reaching their conclusion. This was that the pilots made a fatal error when they flew their serviceable aircraft at high speed into bad weather, which they had been warned to expect, and which they failed to take any action to avoid, towards the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre. In allowing the aircraft to do this the pilots had not exercised the skill, care or judgement they were known to possess. They were therefore held to be grossly negligent.
The two reviewing officers did not overturn the original Board of Inquiry finding, as Mr Turnill suggests, although this is one of the misconceptions that has grown up about the case. Rather, the reviewing officers were part of the Board of Inquiry process and reviewed and commented upon the conclusions of the investigating board, bringing to bear their own experience and professional judgement. They reached an honest decision based on the evidence, which is what they were required to do.
Mr Turnill also mention the subsequent Scottish Coroner's inquiry did not find evidence of gross negligence. However, this inquiry was carried out for a different purpose to the RAF Board of Inquiry; the former was intended to determine the cause of death, while the aim of the latter was to ascertain the cause of the accident and identify what action may be necessary to minimise the risk of recurrence. The Board of Inquiry also had much more technical and operational expertise available to it.
Mr Turnill also mentions the findings of the Public Accounts Committee which was published at the end of November. The Committee appear to have accepted advice from those campaigning to overturn the Board of Inquiry verdict and did not give equal consideration to the MOD's arguments. However, we will shortly be responding fully to the Committee's report.
Finally, I must take issue with any suggestion that the Department has "stonewalled" attempts to have the inquiry reopened. We have examined, in depth, all the arguments and theories put forward to explain this tragic crash. Ministers and officials have gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the finding of the Board of Inquiry and have consistently confirmed the Department's readiness to consider very carefully, anything presented that claims to be new evidence. This remains the position."
Perhaps everyone would like to write to Minister Spellar and ask what he meant.
Thanks for your support Bill, and everyone else. Let's keep the pressure on.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
"Thank you for your letter of 9th January to Geoff Hoon enclosing an e-mail from your constituent Mr Bill Turnill about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Mr Turnill appears to be disappointed that no action has been taken to review the finding of gross negligence against the Chinook pilots. However, I can assure you that the investigation following the accident could not have been more thorough, but revealed no evidence of any technical malfunction. the reviewing officers considered all the circumstances of the flight, its planning and execution, the weather conditions and the serviceability of the aircraft, before reaching their conclusion. This was that the pilots made a fatal error when they flew their serviceable aircraft at high speed into bad weather, which they had been warned to expect, and which they failed to take any action to avoid, towards the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre. In allowing the aircraft to do this the pilots had not exercised the skill, care or judgement they were known to possess. They were therefore held to be grossly negligent.
The two reviewing officers did not overturn the original Board of Inquiry finding, as Mr Turnill suggests, although this is one of the misconceptions that has grown up about the case. Rather, the reviewing officers were part of the Board of Inquiry process and reviewed and commented upon the conclusions of the investigating board, bringing to bear their own experience and professional judgement. They reached an honest decision based on the evidence, which is what they were required to do.
Mr Turnill also mention the subsequent Scottish Coroner's inquiry did not find evidence of gross negligence. However, this inquiry was carried out for a different purpose to the RAF Board of Inquiry; the former was intended to determine the cause of death, while the aim of the latter was to ascertain the cause of the accident and identify what action may be necessary to minimise the risk of recurrence. The Board of Inquiry also had much more technical and operational expertise available to it.
Mr Turnill also mentions the findings of the Public Accounts Committee which was published at the end of November. The Committee appear to have accepted advice from those campaigning to overturn the Board of Inquiry verdict and did not give equal consideration to the MOD's arguments. However, we will shortly be responding fully to the Committee's report.
Finally, I must take issue with any suggestion that the Department has "stonewalled" attempts to have the inquiry reopened. We have examined, in depth, all the arguments and theories put forward to explain this tragic crash. Ministers and officials have gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the finding of the Board of Inquiry and have consistently confirmed the Department's readiness to consider very carefully, anything presented that claims to be new evidence. This remains the position."
Perhaps everyone would like to write to Minister Spellar and ask what he meant.
Thanks for your support Bill, and everyone else. Let's keep the pressure on.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian - I think a specific Chinook chat room is a really bad idea. The topic needs to be on the Military Pilots board so those who know most about military flying see it on a regular basis.
805 - I'm aware of the other Chinook accidents and although they were not technically linked some of the fallout makes interesting reading. That said it's a red herring to try to compare them.
If anyone can provide me with a definative answer to the Jag crash findings I'd be really interested.
805 - I'm aware of the other Chinook accidents and although they were not technically linked some of the fallout makes interesting reading. That said it's a red herring to try to compare them.
If anyone can provide me with a definative answer to the Jag crash findings I'd be really interested.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John,
I wholeheartedly agree that this subject should remain on the Military Pilots Board.
What I meant by the suggestion of the chat room, was somewhere that people could visit at a pre-determined date and time, and chew the fat in real time. Perhaps once a month. It was never meant as a suggetion to replace the thread. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Not to worry, it was just an idea.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I wholeheartedly agree that this subject should remain on the Military Pilots Board.
What I meant by the suggestion of the chat room, was somewhere that people could visit at a pre-determined date and time, and chew the fat in real time. Perhaps once a month. It was never meant as a suggetion to replace the thread. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Not to worry, it was just an idea.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Back to the fight after a busy time at work.
In his reply to Bill Turnill's MP, Spellar continues with the line that the PAC found so unpalatable, i.e. that in the absence of any hard evidence to determine the cause of the accident, then the lack of evidence to disprove the negligence theory allows such a finding to be upheld. Guuilty until proved innocent?
TOSH. The negligence finding requires evidence 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' that the pilots were negligent. My reply to the brush-off I received from one of Hoon's minions points this out. Again.
The assertion that the reviewing officers' remarks did not overturn the BOI findings is also TOSH. After a detailed examination of witnesses and evidence, the BOI found that although mistakes had been made, they did NOT amount to negligence. The reviewng officers, for reasons yet to be examined, decided to bring the finding of gross negligence based on the written report only.
I am about to write to my useless MP to express my feelings of utter impotence in this case. He won't help, and all letters to Government are palmed off with platitudes and evasions which insult my intelligence. He will be short of at least one vote in May.
In his reply to Bill Turnill's MP, Spellar continues with the line that the PAC found so unpalatable, i.e. that in the absence of any hard evidence to determine the cause of the accident, then the lack of evidence to disprove the negligence theory allows such a finding to be upheld. Guuilty until proved innocent?
TOSH. The negligence finding requires evidence 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' that the pilots were negligent. My reply to the brush-off I received from one of Hoon's minions points this out. Again.
The assertion that the reviewing officers' remarks did not overturn the BOI findings is also TOSH. After a detailed examination of witnesses and evidence, the BOI found that although mistakes had been made, they did NOT amount to negligence. The reviewng officers, for reasons yet to be examined, decided to bring the finding of gross negligence based on the written report only.
I am about to write to my useless MP to express my feelings of utter impotence in this case. He won't help, and all letters to Government are palmed off with platitudes and evasions which insult my intelligence. He will be short of at least one vote in May.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I apologise for joining this thread so late in the day - my interests are commercial now. I flew the HC1 for many years before joining an offshore operator. On the day of the accident, I was flying an AS332L Super Puma North out of Aberdeen IN THE SAME AIRMASS and at about the same time.
Of course, I cannot remember the OAT at 3000' after all this time, but I remember wondering when I heard about the accident after my flight, why the crew remained at low level when conditions at MSA were well within the clearance for the HC1. Did the Mk2 have a more restrictive icing clearance?
------------------
Pedro
Of course, I cannot remember the OAT at 3000' after all this time, but I remember wondering when I heard about the accident after my flight, why the crew remained at low level when conditions at MSA were well within the clearance for the HC1. Did the Mk2 have a more restrictive icing clearance?
------------------
Pedro
Guest
Posts: n/a
It may have already been mentioned in these many pages, but has anyone thought of getting one of the daily national papers to take up the cause. The amount of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the guys.
It got Pte Lee Clegg out of jail. I know we can never bring them back but.....?
It got Pte Lee Clegg out of jail. I know we can never bring them back but.....?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having just found out how to check my previous posts:
I've been lurking on this thread since just about the time it started.
In 198* I was in the Falklands, where a Chinook Mk2 was having significant problems in getting its rotors in tune. After much effort the local GCs called in specialist help from the UK. Specialist help, on arrival, not unreasonably decised to ignore all previous work which had achieved zilch and reset everything to basics. Unfortunately, they did not have a rigging scheme for a Mk2. Fortunately, they had a rigging scheme for a Mk 1 and a letter from an "appropriate" authority (sorry - don't know who issued it) saying that where no Mk2 docs were available, Mk1 docs could be used (on the assumption / belief that all the differences were covered in the issued Mk 2 docs I guess). They rigged the ac to the documents, called for aircrew, and a young F/O (who is teetotal but turns up in the mood at parties by mental effort rather than alcohol) started the thing up and was well surprised when the front end left the ground at about 75% RRPM. Turned out that the head is about 1" different in length in the Mk2, and if you follow this through the control runs, you get some blade pitch you didn't expect.
All the above might be bollocks - I was quite junior at the time and not a Chinook driver so may have missed a point. But I believe it to be correct to the best of my ability, and it may add to the evidence about the lack of preparedness of the Mk2 for service if checked.
Of course this remains irrelevant; the real Q lies with the (non)compliance of the RAF with its own rules for BoI.
Sven
------------------
"For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."
Report it!
I've been lurking on this thread since just about the time it started.
In 198* I was in the Falklands, where a Chinook Mk2 was having significant problems in getting its rotors in tune. After much effort the local GCs called in specialist help from the UK. Specialist help, on arrival, not unreasonably decised to ignore all previous work which had achieved zilch and reset everything to basics. Unfortunately, they did not have a rigging scheme for a Mk2. Fortunately, they had a rigging scheme for a Mk 1 and a letter from an "appropriate" authority (sorry - don't know who issued it) saying that where no Mk2 docs were available, Mk1 docs could be used (on the assumption / belief that all the differences were covered in the issued Mk 2 docs I guess). They rigged the ac to the documents, called for aircrew, and a young F/O (who is teetotal but turns up in the mood at parties by mental effort rather than alcohol) started the thing up and was well surprised when the front end left the ground at about 75% RRPM. Turned out that the head is about 1" different in length in the Mk2, and if you follow this through the control runs, you get some blade pitch you didn't expect.
All the above might be bollocks - I was quite junior at the time and not a Chinook driver so may have missed a point. But I believe it to be correct to the best of my ability, and it may add to the evidence about the lack of preparedness of the Mk2 for service if checked.
Of course this remains irrelevant; the real Q lies with the (non)compliance of the RAF with its own rules for BoI.
Sven
------------------
"For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."
Report it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Standto,
welcome to the thread and thanks for your comment. Most newspapers have covered the story at one time or another and would only look at it from either a different perspective (if any are left!), or if there is something recent (such as the PAC Report). Computer Weekly, although not a general newspaper, has been running an excellent and continual campaign for this injustice to be resolved.
Sven,
Likewise, welcome. Not sure if your Falklands story is connected to this injustice but it does highlight the difficulties of the Mk2 during the early days. You are absolutely correct in your closing comment. The RAF completely disregarded their own rules and the verdict is unsustainable. Let your MP know!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread and thanks for your comment. Most newspapers have covered the story at one time or another and would only look at it from either a different perspective (if any are left!), or if there is something recent (such as the PAC Report). Computer Weekly, although not a general newspaper, has been running an excellent and continual campaign for this injustice to be resolved.
Sven,
Likewise, welcome. Not sure if your Falklands story is connected to this injustice but it does highlight the difficulties of the Mk2 during the early days. You are absolutely correct in your closing comment. The RAF completely disregarded their own rules and the verdict is unsustainable. Let your MP know!
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just back from the lovely place in the southern hemisphere and I am well pleased to see that the fight is continuing.
The last thing that I saw on British TV before heading to MPA was Hoon trying to slag the C4 news people off for biased reporting. The whole thing made my blood boil.
As a helo operator(yellow not green) I am forever flying around in dodgy weather, at low level certainly near a lot of cumulo granite. I have been caught out a couple of times when you say 'lets have a look at this valley' only to find that the cloud suddenly gets you. In fact some of my more terrifying experiences have been as a result. Do I consider myself negligent.....NO. As long as you have your escape routes and the like then you can reasonably keep the aircraft and crew safe. So much for operational flying, even on training when our limits are much more strict it is still possible to get caught out as cloud can easily be undefineable(I think that that is a word) and creeps up on you.
Thank you all for keeping this alive, if I can help please email me, details soon to be posted.
I hope that if I ever end up with a similar fate then there will be enough decent fellow aviators to try to clear my name.
The last thing that I saw on British TV before heading to MPA was Hoon trying to slag the C4 news people off for biased reporting. The whole thing made my blood boil.
As a helo operator(yellow not green) I am forever flying around in dodgy weather, at low level certainly near a lot of cumulo granite. I have been caught out a couple of times when you say 'lets have a look at this valley' only to find that the cloud suddenly gets you. In fact some of my more terrifying experiences have been as a result. Do I consider myself negligent.....NO. As long as you have your escape routes and the like then you can reasonably keep the aircraft and crew safe. So much for operational flying, even on training when our limits are much more strict it is still possible to get caught out as cloud can easily be undefineable(I think that that is a word) and creeps up on you.
Thank you all for keeping this alive, if I can help please email me, details soon to be posted.
I hope that if I ever end up with a similar fate then there will be enough decent fellow aviators to try to clear my name.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Safely,
welcome to the thread and welcome back to the UK. You could help the campaign by contacting your MP and asking that they support the Mull of Kintyre Group. Get them to write to the office of Lord Chalfont and pledge their support. There is nothing else that they need do. The vote of support is their contribution. Some MPs do not feel that they know enough or simply are not interested. If yours falls into either of these categories feel free to let me know and if you wish, I'll help you draft a reply. On the whole though, most have been supportive. It would appear that only those called Spellar and Hoon are unable to see the blindingly obvious.
Ed,
likewise, welcome to the thread. As above, if there is anything I can be of help with, please do not hesitate to ask.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread and welcome back to the UK. You could help the campaign by contacting your MP and asking that they support the Mull of Kintyre Group. Get them to write to the office of Lord Chalfont and pledge their support. There is nothing else that they need do. The vote of support is their contribution. Some MPs do not feel that they know enough or simply are not interested. If yours falls into either of these categories feel free to let me know and if you wish, I'll help you draft a reply. On the whole though, most have been supportive. It would appear that only those called Spellar and Hoon are unable to see the blindingly obvious.
Ed,
likewise, welcome to the thread. As above, if there is anything I can be of help with, please do not hesitate to ask.
Regards all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook