Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash pilot FINALLY cleared?
Discussion
This is excellent news, been a very long time coming, but finally, some common sense!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14093592
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14093592
Burrito said:
Forgive my ignorance, the article doesn't say that there was another reason for the crash.
Was there? I do recall all the chinooks were grounded some years back, was that related?
From memory I think the original enquiry blamed the pilots, but did not specify WHAT the pilots did, and yes, they were I think grounded due to software issues, which could have been a factor.Was there? I do recall all the chinooks were grounded some years back, was that related?
I am sure someone will come along soon with a greater insight.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/39182-chino...
Including this interesting email from a Mr David Cameron!
Dear (BEagle)
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely
David Cameron
Including this interesting email from a Mr David Cameron!
Dear (BEagle)
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely
David Cameron
I have read the full report, also I have operated RAF helicopters (not chinook) in that area on many occasions.
Whilst there may well have been issues that may hint at the pilots making mistakes, there is zero, nada, nil evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
This was an utter travesty from beginning to end and the end was never in question - the RAF hierarchy who damned those dead pilots should have the same done to them for the biased report they authored to cover their own mistakes in putting that aircraft into service.
Thankfully, things have changed since then.
Whilst there may well have been issues that may hint at the pilots making mistakes, there is zero, nada, nil evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
This was an utter travesty from beginning to end and the end was never in question - the RAF hierarchy who damned those dead pilots should have the same done to them for the biased report they authored to cover their own mistakes in putting that aircraft into service.
Thankfully, things have changed since then.
When the initial Accident Report was written, the rules had changed as to the use of the 'Accident Cause Group' conclusion 'Aircrew Error'. The rules being that you had to prove beyond doubt. Where you could not prove beyond doubt, the most a Board of Inquiry could say was 'Possible Aircrew Error' as a contributory factor.
I have it on good authority (from a member of the BoI) that that was what the original BoI report stated, but that the BoI was over-ruled by the then Commander HQ 1 Gp (the Command Authority for Support Helicopters at the time), Air Vice Marshal Bill Wratton, who insisted the 'Cause Group' was recorded as 'Aircrew Error'.
The more cynical amongst us believe that this was to hide institutionalised failings withing the world of 'Military Airworthiness'. The Chinook HC2 was known to have problems with its FADEC system and with its Nav kit. Furthermore it wasn't cleared for Operations in Icing Conditions, so on the day in question it couldn't climb above the cloud.
Personally I'd like to see w
kers like Wratton charged with Perverting the Cause of Justice, make a Public apology, and to pay substantial damages to the Families of the deceased pilots.
I have it on good authority (from a member of the BoI) that that was what the original BoI report stated, but that the BoI was over-ruled by the then Commander HQ 1 Gp (the Command Authority for Support Helicopters at the time), Air Vice Marshal Bill Wratton, who insisted the 'Cause Group' was recorded as 'Aircrew Error'.
The more cynical amongst us believe that this was to hide institutionalised failings withing the world of 'Military Airworthiness'. The Chinook HC2 was known to have problems with its FADEC system and with its Nav kit. Furthermore it wasn't cleared for Operations in Icing Conditions, so on the day in question it couldn't climb above the cloud.
Personally I'd like to see w
kers like Wratton charged with Perverting the Cause of Justice, make a Public apology, and to pay substantial damages to the Families of the deceased pilots.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The more cynical amongst us believe that this was to hide institutionalised failings withing the world of 'Military Airworthiness'. The Chinook HC2 was known to have problems with its FADEC system and with its Nav kit. Furthermore it wasn't cleared for Operations in Icing Conditions, so on the day in question it couldn't climb above the cloud.
This was kind of what I was alluding to above, but could not recall the full details. Thanks for that.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Personally I'd like to see wkers like Wratton charged with Perverting the Cause of Justice, make a Public apology, and to pay substantial damages to the Families of the deceased pilots.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^kers like Wratton charged with Perverting the Cause of Justice, make a Public apology, and to pay substantial damages to the Families of the deceased pilots.This!
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
When the initial Accident Report was written, the rules had changed as to the use of the 'Accident Cause Group' conclusion 'Aircrew Error'. The rules being that you had to prove beyond doubt. Where you could not prove beyond doubt, the most a Board of Inquiry could say was 'Possible Aircrew Error' as a contributory factor.
I have it on good authority (from a member of the BoI) that that was what the original BoI report stated, but that the BoI was over-ruled by the then Commander HQ 1 Gp (the Command Authority for Support Helicopters at the time), Air Vice Marshal Bill Wratton, who insisted the 'Cause Group' was recorded as 'Aircrew Error'.
The more cynical amongst us believe that this was to hide institutionalised failings withing the world of 'Military Airworthiness'. The Chinook HC2 was known to have problems with its FADEC system and with its Nav kit. Furthermore it wasn't cleared for Operations in Icing Conditions, so on the day in question it couldn't climb above the cloud.
That's basically what I was getting at with my post. It's worrying that the blame can be apportioned so easily when the proof is inconclusive. I have it on good authority (from a member of the BoI) that that was what the original BoI report stated, but that the BoI was over-ruled by the then Commander HQ 1 Gp (the Command Authority for Support Helicopters at the time), Air Vice Marshal Bill Wratton, who insisted the 'Cause Group' was recorded as 'Aircrew Error'.
The more cynical amongst us believe that this was to hide institutionalised failings withing the world of 'Military Airworthiness'. The Chinook HC2 was known to have problems with its FADEC system and with its Nav kit. Furthermore it wasn't cleared for Operations in Icing Conditions, so on the day in question it couldn't climb above the cloud.
That the aircrew put their lives on the line, both in terms of antique aircraft and enemy fire make the ease in which the pilots have been blamed all the more galling.
RIP to all those on board. My thoughts go out to the families involved who have to relive the events all over again.
PaulHogan said:
The questions I'd like to know the answers to are:
What height (above sea level) were they when they flew into a hill?
How high is the hill?
What height should they have been at?
Why weren't they at (at least) twice the height of any hill in the area?
I suspect that the fact they were special forces pilots with some very very important people on board (MI5, MOD Top Brass IIRC ), they maybe would have been as low as possible,What height (above sea level) were they when they flew into a hill?
How high is the hill?
What height should they have been at?
Why weren't they at (at least) twice the height of any hill in the area?
I thought I made it plain in my earlier post, but to reiterate:
1. The Chinook HC2 had known problems with the Nav kit. So they weren't where the kit said they were.
2. The a/c was not cleared to operate in icing conditions. The characteristic of the cloud that day meant that they could not climb because this would have put them in the icing layer.
Everything else is moot. They were let down by an Operational Tasking with an a/c that was not fit for service. THEN they got blamed for it because the RAF Heirachy of the time KNEW it was their fault for ignoring Military Airworthiness Requirements.
1. The Chinook HC2 had known problems with the Nav kit. So they weren't where the kit said they were.
2. The a/c was not cleared to operate in icing conditions. The characteristic of the cloud that day meant that they could not climb because this would have put them in the icing layer.
Everything else is moot. They were let down by an Operational Tasking with an a/c that was not fit for service. THEN they got blamed for it because the RAF Heirachy of the time KNEW it was their fault for ignoring Military Airworthiness Requirements.
PaulHogan said:
The questions I'd like to know the answers to are:
What height (above sea level) were they when they flew into a hill?
How high is the hill?
What height should they have been at?
Why weren't they at (at least) twice the height of any hill in the area?
You can argue till you're blue in the face what height they should have been at, but the simple fact is that nobody knows because they don't know what was actually happening in the cockpit, as opposed to assuming. Why should they have been at safety altitude if they were still pressing on in visual conditions (VMC)? They planned a low-level transit, so in theory what they were doing was correct - whether they were correct or not to be flying at high speed in poor weather is the nub of the argument.What height (above sea level) were they when they flew into a hill?
How high is the hill?
What height should they have been at?
Why weren't they at (at least) twice the height of any hill in the area?
My personal opinion is that they probably were pressing on at high speed in bad weather, saw the Mull at the last minute and pulled up for an IMC abort, which obviously, did not work. The nuclear option is that they were illegally flying IMC (in cloud) when they hit the Mull, I think this is an extremely unlikely option, but I wonder if this is what underpins Bill Wratten's incredibly biased report.
However....there is not one shred of proof either way and that is my problem with it. Nobody can prove either way what happened.
The facts: A chinook crashed in poor weather. There was no voice/data recorder or eye witnesses of the accident itself. The chinook hit the Mull at high speed a little above the altitude they had planned to fly. The author of the RAF report - Bill Wratten - found the pilots guilty of negligence. Bill Wratten was also responsible for the RAF Chinook fleet - of which serious doubts had been previously raised as to the airworthiness of the type in question - by Test Pilots at Boscombe Down.
You could assume that with Bill Wratten's damning of the pilots of a crashed aircraft that he was responsible for, of which serious doubts had been previously raised, without one iota of proof available, that Bill Wratten was guilty of a coverup of the worst kind. But then you'd be doing to Bill what he did to those poor pilots......
Google "Bill Wratten newsnight interview" to read the transcript of an interview with a haunted man in denial, with a guilty conscience.......
siko said:
My personal opinion is that they probably were pressing on at high speed in bad weather, saw the Mull at the last minute and pulled up for an IMC abort, which obviously, did not work...
This is always at the back of my mind. From where I'm sat it always looks like aircrew error (not negligence, wrecklessness or stupidity as the term implies but a genuine human error) which just happened to involve a highly controversial aircraft type.Hi,
Ive just seen more info about the Chinook crash here:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/the-tony-collins-...
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/...
The pilots have been freed
Ive just seen more info about the Chinook crash here:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/the-tony-collins-...
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/...
The pilots have been freed
Chinook Helicopter Crash 1994 and subsequent two inquiries are all lies!!
I only wish this inquiry was authentic......like all inquiries that have gone before us Matrix Churchill, Scott Inquiry, Hutton inquiry, Mull of Kintyre Review and the still outstanding Chilcot inquiry are all lies!!
The Chinook Accident was no accident.....it was an inside job and I have information to prove this mass cover-up......in Parliament they stated there was only one Chinook departed Northern Ireland and that was ZD576.......wrong there was another one believed to be possibly US that would have been based with the US Navy Seals on the Mull of Kintyre and this helicopter was witnessed in Northern Ireland flying out over the sea and is believed to have tracked to the same location as the one that crashed.
The communications with the RAF Chinook are deeply suspect!!
Why was the crash site overrun by men with American accents when the RAF arrived at the scene??
The female coroner stated that all the crew and passengers died from gunshot wounds to the head!!!!.....that is no accident!!
I was informed by an Intel Operative that this was certainly an inside job carried out via the DTI........this witness was not called to give evidence!!
When the aircraft hit the Mull of Kintyre hills was it on auto pilot and were all onboard already dead?
I doubt if anyone will respond to me but I am angry that everyone is talking about the crew not being responsible but no one knows the real truth.
I would therefore challenge someone to respond to me directly and ask for the same evidence that I provided to the review board and also to the original board of inquiry........such is the evil world we live in and we must uncover the truth
Please understand I am a professional person as per my reference below......its time our government exposed the terrible acts carried out by the Tory Party including massive corruption and illegal arms dealing......that is what is wrong with our country!!!!!
Peter Eyre - Aviation Consultant - Senior Operation - Search and Rescue Expert (helicopters)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff