Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy were Qualified Met Observers we can be reasonably sure that the weather model for the Mull used by the BOI was as correct as could be. They were also the people closest to the actual impact.
Interestingly, every time that the MoD produce a visual representation to describe their theory of the Mull cloud cover, it is shown extending right out from the Mull. Clearly a poor attempt to influence people.
I'm just off to write out 100 times - "I will not get drawn into the weather debate again!"
My best as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go easy on Cazatou, Andy.
If he reads this forum, I can imagine Wratten sitting praying Caz would leave his keyboard alone.
For members of the public reading this forum, there can hardly be a better or more obvious illustration of the type of mentally sclerotic, bone-headed "who needs facts when I've given you my opinion" Staff attitude that led to the initial miscarriage.
Overall, I'd say that Brian aside, Caz may be one of the campaign's biggest assets!
If he reads this forum, I can imagine Wratten sitting praying Caz would leave his keyboard alone.
For members of the public reading this forum, there can hardly be a better or more obvious illustration of the type of mentally sclerotic, bone-headed "who needs facts when I've given you my opinion" Staff attitude that led to the initial miscarriage.
Overall, I'd say that Brian aside, Caz may be one of the campaign's biggest assets!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur Rowe, Cazatou
LIGHTHOUSE COORDS WERE LANDING PAD?
.
Further to my recent description of the common turning point for helos, I think you will find that the co-ords given as “misplotted” for the lighthouse are actually the co-ords for the helo landing pad near the lighthouse (the one the Sea King used when attending the scene of the crash).
.
So we have it that ZD576 had co-ords entered for waypoint A which happened to be the landing pad which in turn seems (according to the lighthouse keeper and what I personally observed once) to have been the common turning point for helos coming over from NI on that leg and turning up the coast.
.
So why was it never said in the inquiries or pointed out on this forum by experienced aircrew that they had entered waypoint A as the heli pad?
Why has it been left unchallenged that the crew was slack about entering the correct co-ords for the lighthouse?
.
cazatou
<< The course of the aircraft did not, however, change and they continued towards the misplotted Waypoint. >>
Oh no they did not – after changing waypoints on the SuperTANS, they turned RIGHT (refer to the Boeing doc “Analysis of Available Data”) which put their subsequent track to the right of the actual geographical position of waypoint A.
Having said what I have, your general view and that of John Purdey would be quite valid (detail excepted) if they did not have a reason to continue closer in – which is the thrust of what I have been saying for some time. It is that reason which I have been trying to establish and with a bit of constructive help may get there yet.
.
.
Brian
<< Quote:
Given that the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy were Qualified Met Observers we can be reasonably sure that the weather model for the Mull used by the BOI was as correct as could be. They were also the people closest to the actual impact.
... who were all standing in the fog/cloud, so therefore unable to say how far, if at all, it extended from the Mull landmass.
.
Interestingly, every time that the MoD produce a visual representation to describe their theory of the Mull cloud cover, it is shown extending right out from the Mull. Clearly a poor attempt to influence people. >>
I could not agree with you more:
Firstly: I am personally very familiar with such local weather conditions and believe confidently from the information available that at the time of their approach they were in the clear over the sea with the mist starting just after the shoreline, following the slope up and merging with the cloudbase at the height of the general cloud base – the lighthouse keeper I was with knew the conditions and we stood together for a while at the point on the slope where the mist started to get so thick that you could not see the sea a bit further up but a bit further down you could see it clearly right across for miles – below this point you could look back up at the mist. It is extraordinary to me that if this lighthouse keeper was asked properly to describe the conditions that he would not have made it clear that these conditions were very common – I suppose how you ask questions and how you selectively use replies comes down to what answers you want.
.
Secondly regarding the visual representation showing cloud extending out from the Mull: I made this very point some time ago – it seems that they have used every opportunity to imply/ spin that the pilots were at fault.
LIGHTHOUSE COORDS WERE LANDING PAD?
.
Further to my recent description of the common turning point for helos, I think you will find that the co-ords given as “misplotted” for the lighthouse are actually the co-ords for the helo landing pad near the lighthouse (the one the Sea King used when attending the scene of the crash).
.
So we have it that ZD576 had co-ords entered for waypoint A which happened to be the landing pad which in turn seems (according to the lighthouse keeper and what I personally observed once) to have been the common turning point for helos coming over from NI on that leg and turning up the coast.
.
So why was it never said in the inquiries or pointed out on this forum by experienced aircrew that they had entered waypoint A as the heli pad?
Why has it been left unchallenged that the crew was slack about entering the correct co-ords for the lighthouse?
.
cazatou
<< The course of the aircraft did not, however, change and they continued towards the misplotted Waypoint. >>
Oh no they did not – after changing waypoints on the SuperTANS, they turned RIGHT (refer to the Boeing doc “Analysis of Available Data”) which put their subsequent track to the right of the actual geographical position of waypoint A.
Having said what I have, your general view and that of John Purdey would be quite valid (detail excepted) if they did not have a reason to continue closer in – which is the thrust of what I have been saying for some time. It is that reason which I have been trying to establish and with a bit of constructive help may get there yet.
.
.
Brian
<< Quote:
Given that the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy were Qualified Met Observers we can be reasonably sure that the weather model for the Mull used by the BOI was as correct as could be. They were also the people closest to the actual impact.
... who were all standing in the fog/cloud, so therefore unable to say how far, if at all, it extended from the Mull landmass.
.
Interestingly, every time that the MoD produce a visual representation to describe their theory of the Mull cloud cover, it is shown extending right out from the Mull. Clearly a poor attempt to influence people. >>
I could not agree with you more:
Firstly: I am personally very familiar with such local weather conditions and believe confidently from the information available that at the time of their approach they were in the clear over the sea with the mist starting just after the shoreline, following the slope up and merging with the cloudbase at the height of the general cloud base – the lighthouse keeper I was with knew the conditions and we stood together for a while at the point on the slope where the mist started to get so thick that you could not see the sea a bit further up but a bit further down you could see it clearly right across for miles – below this point you could look back up at the mist. It is extraordinary to me that if this lighthouse keeper was asked properly to describe the conditions that he would not have made it clear that these conditions were very common – I suppose how you ask questions and how you selectively use replies comes down to what answers you want.
.
Secondly regarding the visual representation showing cloud extending out from the Mull: I made this very point some time ago – it seems that they have used every opportunity to imply/ spin that the pilots were at fault.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayteeto,
Thanks for that.
Just remember that the requirement was that Reviewing Officers be in no doubt that negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
Para 23 from the final submission to the HOL Committee:-
"What is clear is that at some point the aircraft entered cloud, which the pilots had been warned to expect, and that it did so well below safety altitude, at high speed and heading for high ground. As they approached land the pilots should have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly. The finding of negligence is based on the incontrovertible fact that they failed to take any avoiding action."
The BOI and Reviewing Officers had the same Met Forecasts and planning maps as the crew.
Thanks for that.
Just remember that the requirement was that Reviewing Officers be in no doubt that negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
Para 23 from the final submission to the HOL Committee:-
"What is clear is that at some point the aircraft entered cloud, which the pilots had been warned to expect, and that it did so well below safety altitude, at high speed and heading for high ground. As they approached land the pilots should have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly. The finding of negligence is based on the incontrovertible fact that they failed to take any avoiding action."
The BOI and Reviewing Officers had the same Met Forecasts and planning maps as the crew.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
Where is that written down?
I thought that the requirement was that "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent", as per AP3207 - RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, Page 9
Doesn't say anything about Reviewing Officers being judge and jury, or being selective about what fits, and doesn't fit their theory.
I agree, apart from the use of the word 'high' before speed. Otherwise the aircraft would not have impacted with the ground.
One would hope so. At least one of them should have been looking out of the window.
Why did they? I'm very interested in your answer to this one!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just remember that the requirement was that Reviewing Officers be in no doubt that negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
I thought that the requirement was that "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent", as per AP3207 - RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, Page 9
Doesn't say anything about Reviewing Officers being judge and jury, or being selective about what fits, and doesn't fit their theory.
What is clear is that at some point the aircraft entered cloud, which the pilots had been warned to expect, and that it did so well below safety altitude, at high speed and heading for high ground.
As they approached land the pilots should have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly.
The finding of negligence is based on the incontrovertible fact that they failed to take any avoiding action.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
You seem to be very familiar with the workings of the HOL committee. Even able to quote specific paragraphs. You illustrate well the fact that the committee took exhaustive evidence from all sides. By the end, this impartial group must have been extremely well informed!
Would you remind us what determination the committee came to when considering the issue of human failings (negligence), or indeed their opinion of the reviewing officer's tenuous grasp on reality. Perhaps again quoting a paragraph or two.
PS: I note you agree with me that your (and the MOD's) assertion that the aircraft was in cloud at waypoint change is not based on any evidence!
How odd that you (and they) feel comfortable speculating in such a way.
Nice point An Teallach
You seem to be very familiar with the workings of the HOL committee. Even able to quote specific paragraphs. You illustrate well the fact that the committee took exhaustive evidence from all sides. By the end, this impartial group must have been extremely well informed!
Would you remind us what determination the committee came to when considering the issue of human failings (negligence), or indeed their opinion of the reviewing officer's tenuous grasp on reality. Perhaps again quoting a paragraph or two.
PS: I note you agree with me that your (and the MOD's) assertion that the aircraft was in cloud at waypoint change is not based on any evidence!
How odd that you (and they) feel comfortable speculating in such a way.
"who needs facts when I've given you my opinion" Staff attitude that led to the initial miscarriage.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 24th Aug 2006 at 11:38.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allow me to assist if I may:
"unanimously conclude"!
Has Sir William ever mentioned that?
How odd!
On reflection, I think I have to agree with An Teallach:
I think cazatou (K52) probably is becoming an asset to the campaign. He is drawing our attention to many things that do indeed need highlighting on a regular basis, if only for the benefit of our occasional readers!
174. In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
Has Sir William ever mentioned that?
How odd!
On reflection, I think I have to agree with An Teallach:
I think cazatou (K52) probably is becoming an asset to the campaign. He is drawing our attention to many things that do indeed need highlighting on a regular basis, if only for the benefit of our occasional readers!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 24th Aug 2006 at 18:18.
Just a numbered other
caz,
One gets a little tired of refuting wild assumptions and sycophancy, only to have genuine questions regarding your sources and evidence routinely ignored.
Liked the attempt to weave the required level of proof into this:
Not at all sure of your point however.
The aircraft was flying legally in VMC and obeying VFR until............. Well, we don't know. Why it then went into IMC and crashed, we also don't know. The lighthouse keeper, whatever his quals, was driving down the hill in cloud, so has no idea how far below his position it extended.
As for the mis-plot. That's as far off track (scuse pun) as your wild breakfastgate allegations.
As Arthur Rowe points out; in VFR nav one picks big features which can be easily identified. You plot them to a reasonable accuracy (within a few hundred metres will do) and off you go. Once you've seen the W/P you select the next. At no stage during the planning or execution of this task is it likely that overflight of the W/P (lighthouse) or the land mass was contemplated.
Why the aircraft entered a 'cruise climb', deviated to the right slightly, and flew into the mull
WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED.
Another question for you to avoid:
who are these people?
One gets a little tired of refuting wild assumptions and sycophancy, only to have genuine questions regarding your sources and evidence routinely ignored.
Liked the attempt to weave the required level of proof into this:
The people at the Lighthouse on the Mull were in ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about the weather conditions. The Deputy Lighthouse Keeper was driving back down the Hill when the Chinook exploded on the hillside behind him - he heard, but never saw, the aircraft.
The aircraft was flying legally in VMC and obeying VFR until............. Well, we don't know. Why it then went into IMC and crashed, we also don't know. The lighthouse keeper, whatever his quals, was driving down the hill in cloud, so has no idea how far below his position it extended.
As for the mis-plot. That's as far off track (scuse pun) as your wild breakfastgate allegations.
As Arthur Rowe points out; in VFR nav one picks big features which can be easily identified. You plot them to a reasonable accuracy (within a few hundred metres will do) and off you go. Once you've seen the W/P you select the next. At no stage during the planning or execution of this task is it likely that overflight of the W/P (lighthouse) or the land mass was contemplated.
Why the aircraft entered a 'cruise climb', deviated to the right slightly, and flew into the mull
WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED.
Another question for you to avoid:
To some it quite clear that the entire Crew are innocent
Last edited by Arkroyal; 25th Aug 2006 at 00:24.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd, Sir William has never mentioned that.
Fortunately, I think we can discount Andy Nicholls' suggestion.
Just a numbered other
Sorry, Brian,
Didn't mean to offend. I firmly believe in the guys' innocence, but I can't prove it any more than Caz et al can prove the opposite.
Thankfully, I don't have to.
Didn't mean to offend. I firmly believe in the guys' innocence, but I can't prove it any more than Caz et al can prove the opposite.
Thankfully, I don't have to.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proof
Ark Royal
You have hit the nail on the head - we do not have to prove innocence MOD has to prove guilt and so far they have failed to do so. This verdict was based on a cabal of Air Marshals taking a decision with no chance for any discussion of the alternatives or any defence - that would not normally be the basis for proving guilt except it seems for MOD! The evidence available that we can use to establish innocence (by proving that there must be massive doubts about guilt) is exactly the same as MOD is using to claim to have "proven" guilt - but as they and we know the only established fact is that "nobody knows", and they never will. Even the SRO makes this point. Would anyone on this site make a finding equivalent to culpable homicide based on that?
The guilty verdict does not withstand the test of legal opinion from the FAI through the Juridical Review to the HofL, but clearly it must be compatible with the ethical standards of justice used by MOD, but then so are lots of other things that others might not accept - it was not MOD "compassion" that caused MOD to offer WW1 pardons last week - it was losing in Court!
JB
You have hit the nail on the head - we do not have to prove innocence MOD has to prove guilt and so far they have failed to do so. This verdict was based on a cabal of Air Marshals taking a decision with no chance for any discussion of the alternatives or any defence - that would not normally be the basis for proving guilt except it seems for MOD! The evidence available that we can use to establish innocence (by proving that there must be massive doubts about guilt) is exactly the same as MOD is using to claim to have "proven" guilt - but as they and we know the only established fact is that "nobody knows", and they never will. Even the SRO makes this point. Would anyone on this site make a finding equivalent to culpable homicide based on that?
The guilty verdict does not withstand the test of legal opinion from the FAI through the Juridical Review to the HofL, but clearly it must be compatible with the ethical standards of justice used by MOD, but then so are lots of other things that others might not accept - it was not MOD "compassion" that caused MOD to offer WW1 pardons last week - it was losing in Court!
JB
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark,
fear not. No offence caused at all. It was a poor attempt at humour on my part - hence the smiley. Your support is a given.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
fear not. No offence caused at all. It was a poor attempt at humour on my part - hence the smiley. Your support is a given.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
Thanks Brian
Bless
And thank you, John Blakeley. If only others could grasp the utter simplicity of this cause.
Bless
And thank you, John Blakeley. If only others could grasp the utter simplicity of this cause.
Last edited by Arkroyal; 26th Aug 2006 at 07:49.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy Nicholls,
Re your post #2610.
I TRUST YOU ARE WILLING TO REMOVE, AND APOLOGISE FOR, THAT OUTRAGEOUS SLUR REGARDING THE MORALS OF MY LATE MOTHER WHO DIED IN 2002 AGED 87.
Re your post #2610.
I TRUST YOU ARE WILLING TO REMOVE, AND APOLOGISE FOR, THAT OUTRAGEOUS SLUR REGARDING THE MORALS OF MY LATE MOTHER WHO DIED IN 2002 AGED 87.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovechild
Cazatou
It is very insulting, but not necessarily to your late mother. A love child of a certain senior officer could be the result of a liason between him and a lady who was not your mother. He is still being rude about you but not necessarily to your Mother. Typical of the way 'discussion' often goes here.
1. Bald Statement of fact
2. Blunt Contradiction
3. Verbal Abuse
It is very insulting, but not necessarily to your late mother. A love child of a certain senior officer could be the result of a liason between him and a lady who was not your mother. He is still being rude about you but not necessarily to your Mother. Typical of the way 'discussion' often goes here.
1. Bald Statement of fact
2. Blunt Contradiction
3. Verbal Abuse
Last edited by A2QFI; 28th Aug 2006 at 06:55.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Cazatou (K52)
You aren't prepared 'TO REMOVE, AND APOLOGISE FOR, THE OUTRAGEOUS SLUR REGARDING THE PROFESSIONALISM OF MY LATE FRIEND WHO DIED IN 1994 AGED 30.'
Which has been assessed by numerous 'independent' bodies to be unsupportable to the standard required.
You aren't prepared 'TO REMOVE, AND APOLOGISE FOR, THE OUTRAGEOUS SLUR REGARDING THE PROFESSIONALISM OF MY LATE FRIEND WHO DIED IN 1994 AGED 30.'
Which has been assessed by numerous 'independent' bodies to be unsupportable to the standard required.