New Call to Overturn Chinook verdict

#1
Call to overturn Chinook Verdict


The development comes after Conservative MP Henry Bellingham claimed new RAF rules on fatal accidents, mean that if a similar crash happened today, the pilots would not be blamed.

In light of the rule changes, Mr Bellingham put forward the motion calling on the Ministry of Defence to re-open its inquiry into the Chinook crash, which claimed the lives of many of Ulster's top terrorism experts.
 
#2
So "Presson-itis" is no longer something that a pilot can be blamed for?

Interesting...
 
#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?

NTM
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#5
California_Tanker said:
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?

NTM
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?

NTM
 
#8
California_Tanker said:
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?

NTM
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
TheHelpfulStacker said:
California_Tanker said:
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?NTM
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.
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?
 
C

cloudbuster

Guest
#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
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!!
 
#16
spike7451 said:
The Aircrew should never have been scapegoated like they were just to protect some w***** higher up in never never land!!
So who is being protected "higher up"?

This crash was bound to attract the conspiracy lunatics, and it is a tragic fact of life that no one likes to see blame being attributed to people that cannot answer back.

But people make mistakes - even good well meaning people with previously unblemished records.

The theorists can find a million reaons why some statistically and technically improbable chain of events might have caused the crash. But the fact of the matter is that the aircraft flew at full speed into a hill, with the pilots making no attempt to gain height in poor visibility. Tragic, but these things happen. The only people who actually KNOW what happened are dead, and in my view the people who keep raking it up have their own self interests at heart, rather than some altruistic loyalty to two dead pilots, and a score of other talented soldiers, airmen and policemen.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#17
adastra said:
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
Likewise a SSgt AAC commented to me that 'it was absolutely the pilots fault'. He made it clear, through a rather lengthy explaination of the nav aids and so forth that on the assumption the helecopter could fly and that they had a map, they shouldn't have flown into a cliff. In the absence of knowing anyone else as qualified in the field with a counter opinion, for me, this matter was correctly closed. SSgt AAC also commented that this was his mess's opinion.
 
#18
Why did they fly on Tuesday when the meeting the passengers were attending wasn't til Thursday?
The passenger rank-range was Major to Brigadier, the crew rank range was Captain to Captain (plus the two loadies). Do you really think they'd have gone if it was a bunch of squaddies?

The weather was marginal and they knew it. How many of the passengers took golf-clubs to this important security meeting?

I don't work in aviation anymore but I was working in aviation in NI when this accident happened and I have read the RAF BOI post-accident report, so in this matter I do know what I'm talking about.

Who on this site can honestly say they have never bent a few rules to make a some higher up than themselves happy. It's human nature, we like to make people happy, unfortunately on this occasion a little bit of helpfulness caused the deaths of 29 people.
 
#19
As someone who has had involvement with the aftermath and investigation of both vehicle crashes and aircraft crashes I have a point to make.

Whenever a car crashes what is the assumption that is made? Is it assumed that it was a mechanical failure? That there are major hidden design faults? That there is a conspiracy by high level industrialists? No, it is assumed that, until other information comes to light, it was the fault of the driver. This assumption is, in the vast majority of cases correct.

Now contrast that with the assumptions made when an aircraft crashes. Outside the aviation industry, both military and civilian, we got the wild speculation as previously mentioned, but within we normally, especially in cases such as this where it appears the aircraft was perfectly serviceable right up until it hit the hill, know that the same situation as a car crash applies, and invariably it was the fault of the crew.

The mystique and misplaced adoration that many in the public have for pilots clouds (no pun intended) this issue, and the media who jump on some pathetic Battle of Britain comparison every time they feature a military pilot do not help (female Lynx pilot in Iraq, like ****) and the public are condition to think that pilots (especially service pilots) are infallible. They are not. They make mistakes, get bored, show off and behave in very immature and irresponsible ways at times, and on occasion this causes crashes.

I personally agree with the point made earlier and the remarks reported as attributable to the AAC pilot. That they flew the thing into a mountainside, and they are at fault.
 
#20
Having had some slight involvement in this particular incident and having worked in ATC (Air Traffic Control) all my adult life (now 31 years, 25 of them in a blue suit) this seemed at the time, and still does, to be a classic case of CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain).
All respect to the guy on PPrune who has kept the thing alive but, like the dog that constantly shags your leg, you have to learn when you're drilling a dry well.


----------------------------------
You don't appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle-aged woman: Stuff you pay good money for in later life.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top