Letter: Questions remain over Chinook crash

THE pilots of the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 have not been "cleared" or "exonerated from blame" (leader, 14 July). All Lord Philip's review did was to recommend that the conclusion that the pilots were "grossly negligent" should be "set aside" and that is what the Ministry of Defence has done.

I find the resulting rejoicing somewhat distasteful. There has long been a campaign to have the pilots cleared of blame (implying that there was a fault with the aircraft).

Yet that campaign appears to have interpreted the decision as victory. In fact, to the review as to the original Board of Inquiry, the cause was unknown, but with pilot error a possibility.

Lord Philip and his colleagues observed that a verdict of "gross negligence" was only appropriate where "there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever".

They interpreted this to mean "no doubt about the cause of the accident", yet it is clear that the air marshals did not have this in mind when they made their accusation.

They also did not know the cause of the accident; they condemned the pilots for flying too fast and low in conditions where flight safety rules required an immediate climb to safety altitude. Because the air marshals had no doubt whatsoever about this aspect (that the pilots broke the rules), they were justified in their decision.

It appears to me therefore that Lord Philip has confused what was in doubt and has muddied the waters with an inappropriate recommendation which wrongly impugns the air marshals and/or whoever gave them legal advice.

Flying a serviceable aircraft into the ground has it own acronym (CFit, Controlled Flight Into Terrain) and is almost invariably due to pilot error (ie the pilots did not know that the ground was there). That fits this case, but what was not explained was why it happened.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh

In his opinion piece (13 July) John McTernan asserts that pilots caused the Chinook disaster. This bold and overly simplistic view looks particularly ill-timed given the Defence Secretary's subsequent apology to the pilots' families and the setting aside of the verdict of negligence.

The insinuation that the inquiry into the accident was promised in order to take a contrarian stance and improve the chance of election is unconvincing, as is the view that the inquiry was pressured and influenced by "a refusal to accept anyone was at fault" due to a "no-blame culture" gone too far.

Much has been written about the particulars of the accident, however the consensus among aviation experts and the judiciary must now be that we will never know the exact cause of the crash. In this circumstance it is unhelpful to make the allocation of blame the main purpose of an investigation.

It is a matter of record that legal advice given to the investigating air chief marshals was flawed. Changes have been made to the RAF Board of Inquiry process and the appropriateness of any organisation being the ultimate investigator of its own accidents been called in to question.

This is particularly important because of the complexity of most accidents. Even where pilot error can be ascribed as the primary causal factor, institutional failings (technical, training, cultural etc) often contribute significantly.

The original verdict of negligence in this case may have given false closure to the passengers families. An injustice to the pilots' serves no useful end, does not help prevent recurrence and is more tragic for the reason that they are unable to defend themselves.

(Snr First Officer) Per Cunningham

East Pilton Farm Rigg

Edinburgh

Bruce Skivington (Letters, 14 July) condemns his own conclusion that pilot error caused the Kintyre Chinook crash by his use of the word "probably".

Queens Regulations require that, to record a verdict of gross negligence after an accident, there must be "no doubt whatsoever" that the pilot caused the crash.

The fact is, there is plenty of doubt. The reasons for the crash of ZD576 remain unknown and we must not pretend otherwise.

Neil Griffiths

Royal British Legion Scotland

Logie Green Road

Edinburgh

Did the air marshals originally give a verdict of gross negligence because they thought the crew had their feet up on the dashboard not giving a thought to the well mapped land known as the Mull of Kintyre rising up out of the sea ahead?

Has nobody considered sabotage?

R Brodie

Duff Street

Dundee