New Call to Overturn Chinook verdict

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Minxy, Oct 30, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Call to overturn Chinook Verdict

  2. So "Presson-itis" is no longer something that a pilot can be blamed for?

  3. About time too, lets hope that they overturn the result
  4. I am vaguely aware of the incident, from a fair few years ago, if I recall, but if it wasn't the pilot's fault, whose was it that they flew into a hill in bad weather?

  5. Now you're just being an obnoxious c*nt.
  6. NTM

    Possibly Boeing's? Possibly no-one's?

    There were a variety of other possible causes (discussed at great length by people far more qualified that I am over on Pprune, if you're interested). The point here is that it didn't matter how remote the possibilities of something other than pilot error may or may not have been - under the rules, there had to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilots were at fault.

    Given the chequered service introduction of the HC2 model of the Chinook (pilots at Boscombe Down refusing to fly it on the grounds that it was unsafe; FADEC problems; faults that couldn't be replicated) and the lack of an ADR, the 'no doubt whatsoever' criterion couldn't be met.

    Although the RAF Board of Inquiry didn't find the pilots at fault, two Air Marshals decided otherwise and over-ruled the BOI. Their reasons for doing this have been subjected to considerable criticism. The Fatal Accident inquiry (inquest) said that it was unreasonable to blame the pilots, and a House of Lords Select Committee made up of several very distinguished legal types said that the Air Marshals had failed to understand the rules, and had misapplied them.

    The RAF changed the rules after this case, making it almost impossible for a similar verdict to be returned, and it is widely held that this was a result of recognising that an injustice had been done to the two pilots. Former government ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence at the time have said that the verdict was unjust; indeed, the then Sec of State has said that he would have refused to accept the verdict at the time had he known what he does now.

    Nevertheless, the MoD sticks by the verdict, and as you'll see from Pprune, there are suggestions that this is simply to avoid facing liability for compensation.
  7. Fair enough then.

    I take it that the Air Marshalls didn't believe in the concept of 'a simple accident' then, it had to be someone's fault?

  8. Due to the importance of the passengers aboard the Chinook I don't believe that it could ever have been signed off as 'a simple accident', someone had to be hung out to dry and unfortuantely it was someone who is no longer in a position to defend themselves.
  9. Only one military pilot in either the RAF or AAC has been court marshalled for crashing an aircraft (an AAC SSgt). It seems rather unfair to blame two men who if they had survived would have been unlikely to have been court marshalled. Doesn't it?

    Blame, responsibility and culpability are all different things, but in this case they are being smeared around a bit.
  10. Not too closely invovled in this area myself, but shared an office for 2 years with an experienced rotary pilot with decades of NI + Jebel experience, who offered a personal view:

    Apart from potential engine control /FADEC issues, these aircraft have sophisticated navaids and are capable of transiting in airways up to FL12. In those weather conditions.

    Why in such a benign threat environment, did the aircraft have to be flying so low??

    Some would say unnecessarily low

    IMHO Computer Weekly should stick to what it knows best, a server farm in the warm, and leave the West Coast of Scotland in poor Wx to others.
  11. Was there ever any enquiry as to why all our eggs of int. got put into one basket?
  12. There was a load of stuff about this in Eye Spy magazine and talk on PPrune about the rumour of the crash being caused by a US UAV. Aparently the yanks showed up first and removed a load of wreckage not from the Chinook. Also there was still supposed to be some wreckage at the site not recovered by yanks also not from the Chinook.
  13. How come it didn't fall out of the sky during the miles of Irish Sea it had just flown across but face planted into the first piece of solid earth it had come across in 250 miles?
  14. As Archimedes has pointed out, the background information is available on Pprune, as a sticky in the Military Aircrew forum. Sadly, you may have to wade through some tosh thrown in by the conspiracy theorists, but the info is there, including the reason why this model of Chinook was not cleared to fly at Flight Level nose-bleed, (adastra).
  15. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    I believe the FADEC system had resulted in the U.S Forces grounding their Chinnok fleet as it was unsafe to fly in low vis situations.
    The Aircrew should never have been scapegoated like they were just to protect some w***** higher up in never never land!!