View Full Version : Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994.
Hopefully Flt Lt Cook, and Flt Lt Tapper will finally get justice..
Newly discovered Ministry of Defence documents have cast further doubt on the cause of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994.
Twenty-nine people were killed on the flight from Belfast to Inverness.
They included 25 of Northern Ireland's most senior intelligence experts and four special forces crew.
The documents have never been made available to any previous probe into the accident, including the fatal accident inquiry, the BBC understands.
In 1992 the RAF set up a Chinook Airworthiness Review Team, led by a wing commander engineer, because of concerns about safety and maintenance standards, the papers show.
The subsequent report said five previous crashes over six years had called into question the effectiveness of the aircraft's overall "management and maintenance".
The FAI and original RAF Board of Inquiry did not apportion blame for the Mull of Kintyre crash.
But in 1995 two RAF air marshals subsequently blamed the pilots for "gross negligence".
Full details here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13054973
Hopefully Flt Lt Cook, and Flt Lt Tapper will finally get justice..
I do hope so. The idea that the pilots might not have been familiar with the geography of the Mull (or dismissive of it's potential dangers) seemed quite ludicrous at the time - and still does.
I hope so too, I never believed the pilots were at fault especially considering all who were on board!!! who in their right mind would put all those 'top' people in the one flight! which is why I think attention was diverted towards the pilots, just another dissasterous decision for the MOD. Maybe this will go some way towards their family's heartache.
"..Newly discovered Ministry of Defence documents have cast further doubt on the cause of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994.
"..But in 1995 two RAF air marshals subsequently blamed the pilots for "gross negligence"
So I take it you mean there was a conspiracy going on.
And I thought that you never believed in all of this "cover up" malarkey.
Remember, the truth is out there, somewhere
So I take it you mean there was a conspiracy going on.
And I thought that you never believed in all of this "cover up" malarkey.
Remember, the truth is out there, somewhere
Oh my goodness he's woken up - what's this about anfield, something else for you to agitate about.. what are YOUR thoughts on this?
Oh my goodness he's woken up - what's this about anfield, something else for you to agitate about.. what are YOUR thoughts on this?
I think Garnet summed it up perfectly.
I think Garnet summed it up perfectly.
Don't often - if ever - agree with you Anfield, but as is shown by your signature about Michael Stone, miscarriages do occur - and there are cover-ups..
Don't often - if ever - agree with you Anfield, but as is shown by your signature about Michael Stone, miscarriages do occur - and there are cover-ups..
I would delete above post as people may think we are concurring on something!
The Drunken Duck
13-Apr-11, 16:34
The Authorisation sheets for the flight, and Tapper was a self authorizing Captain, show that he decided to transit at low level for "low level training over unfamiliar terrain", aircrew regulalry do this to maintain proficiency so they were not familiar with that area. Its the same reason why Nimrods were often seen at Wick, pilots go to as many airfields as possible for proficiency. He also had a GPS fault investigated before take off. Regs said he should have documented it but he did not. The Chinooks at that time had avionics problems in certain areas and the electronic engine controls were also tempremental. The accident data showed the aircraft accelerated severly before impact. This led to suspicions that the engines "ran away". I witnessed this happening to a Tornado. If you pull the electrics offline, or interrupt the supply, at the wrong time the engine will accelerate to destruction. The Tornado basically blew its tail off. Like all accidents in the Air Force they are picked apart to see what can be learned to stop the same thing happening again. This one featured regularly on Flight Safety courses, there wasnt one huge cause to point the finger at, there were a lot of things. Some more important than others but all were basically a chain that led to the crash. Just like the vast majority of all crashes. There is a good book by Stuart Campbell called Chinook Crash that is quite a good read on this accident.
There was no "conspiracy" there was just an eagerness to heap the blame on the crew by certain high ups in the Air Force when the truth was there was blame to go around many areas. It happened in previous accidents. There was an incident in 1982 where an RAF Phantom shot down a Jaguar over Germany. The crew were blamed but lots of factors caused it, the wiring on the pylon had become chafed through use and that had allowed a short that launched the missile but the fact that the crew were allowed to take a live armed aircraft (the spare had broken and there was pressure to launch to keep up the exercise tempo) contributed to it as did the Master Armament switch being set to "live" by the Pilot. Being a live armed aircraft that was a no no but okay in one that isnt armed with live missiles. The pilot just got confused due to a high workload, last minute aircraft swaps and being pressured to make his on target time due to delays because of the aircraft swap. That specific aircraft should not have been there on that mission, the pilot should not have toggled the Master Arm to live, and the wiring had been crimped allowing a wire to be become exposed and a short to launch the missile. Remove any one of those and the accident would not have happened. Same scenario here. This was a last minute flight.
Now cue the tinfoil hat scenarios, and no doubt a few digs from certain quarters.
There is some truth about the reports of Aurora being involved.
The Authorisation sheets for the flight, and Tapper was a self authorizing Captain, show that he decided to transit at low level for "low level training over unfamiliar terrain", aircrew regulalry do this to maintain proficiency so they were not familiar with that area.
Whilst not doubting you, I am amazed that they should have put their VIP passengers at risk by carrying out low level training in the pea souper which prevailed. I would be very interested to read more about this - could you point me in the direction of your source please?
Questions DD a) why would the pilot fly low in an unfamiliar local with so many 'important' people on board especialy (as reported) in fog? Surely not to practice? b) I am aware of the 'closing of ranks' as they say, seen it in action, have you not, having been in the services yourself? c) I didn't actually say it was a 'conspiracy' as such, more a case of 'blame the pilots' since they're no longer here to answer etc etc. Lastly I will say they weren't totally to blame, who checked the helicopter, who made it a rush job in the first place, as you pointed out take this and that out of the equasion and the accident may never have happened
Whilst not doubting you, I am amazed that they should have put their VIP passengers at risk by carrying out low level training in the pea souper which prevailed. I would be very interested to read more about this - could you point me in the direction of your source please?
Questions DD a) why would the pilot fly low in an unfamiliar local with so many 'important' people on board especialy (as reported) in fog? Surely not to practice? b) I am aware of the 'closing of ranks' as they say, seen it in action, have you not, having been in the services yourself? c) I didn't actually say it was a 'conspiracy' as such, more a case of 'blame the pilots' since they're no longer here to answer etc etc. Lastly I will say they weren't totally to blame, who checked the helicopter, who made it a rush job in the first place, as you pointed out take this and that out of the equasion and the accident may never have happened
The Drunken Duck - Keen to hear more about your sources please ......
Got passed this by another Orger: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/39182-chinook-still-hitting-back-3-merged.html makes interesting reading..
Phew that was some 'read' bekisman thank you for that. G.
However I must say to DD that in no way was I 'getting at you' I was genuinely asking your oppinion for some enlightment for myself since I believe you were in the forces yourself. I appologise if I brought you any embarrassment or disrespect from anyone. Regards G. http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon11.png
It is a heavy but informative read, thanks Beks. So the question, in my mind, is how could they RAF BOI find the pilots negligent ?
About time too!
'Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash report 'clears pilots'
An official review into the Chinook helicopter crash in Scotland concludes the two dead pilots should not have been blamed, the BBC has learned.
The independent report, chaired by retired judge Lord Philip, is expected to say that the pilots should not have been accused of gross negligence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/)
It is a heavy but informative read, thanks Beks. So the question, in my mind, is how could they RAF BOI find the pilots negligent ?
The RAF seems to be saying that the way they were flying was against the rules.
As has now been shown, what the RAF have said may be in question.
Oh well it may have taken 17 years, but an apology at last..
Good
'Defence Secretary Liam Fox has apologised to the families of two RAF pilots who were wrongly blamed for the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash.
Retired judge Lord Philip, sitting in private along with a panel of three Scottish politicians, has spent nine months reviewing the accident. He concluded that: "Because of the limited amount of evidence available, the investigating board were unable to determine the cause of the accident, and so concluded that it was impossible to find that the pilots had been negligent to any degree.
"The reviewing officers, on the other hand, concluded on the same evidence that both pilots had been negligent to a gross degree.
"We have unanimously concluded that the high standard of proof did not allow the reviewing officers to make that finding on the basis of the available evidence."
Following Lord Philip's findings, Mr Fox told the House of Commons that he had now written to the relatives of the airmen to apologise for the distress caused to them by the RAF's original findings that they were guilty of "gross negligence".
He told the Commons: "I hope that this report, and the action I have taken in response to it, will bring an end to this very sad chapter by removing the stain on the reputations of the two pilots."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14130867
At last sense prevails..........the pilots have been cleared........but i do wish the Drunken Duck would come back I'm sure he'll be delighted.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.