Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Many thanks again, my question answered. Just to make it clear, I was not suggesting that an engine runaway did or may have occurred on that occasion. I picked that as an example to make my point because I understand that was one of the FADEC failures that have occurred.
For what its worth, I am very surprised to hear that the rules would allow a passenger flight at the ultra-low levels and weather conditions you suggest.
Regards
Boslandew
Many thanks again, my question answered. Just to make it clear, I was not suggesting that an engine runaway did or may have occurred on that occasion. I picked that as an example to make my point because I understand that was one of the FADEC failures that have occurred.
For what its worth, I am very surprised to hear that the rules would allow a passenger flight at the ultra-low levels and weather conditions you suggest.
Regards
Boslandew
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bos,
This was NI and everything there was part of an ongoing operation therefore folk were were flying to operational limits which, if my memory serves me well the day limits were 100' and 1k.
I have no idea what the auth sheet that day stated but as previously pointed out comparing military and civvy limits is simply futile.
This was NI and everything there was part of an ongoing operation therefore folk were were flying to operational limits which, if my memory serves me well the day limits were 100' and 1k.
I have no idea what the auth sheet that day stated but as previously pointed out comparing military and civvy limits is simply futile.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
Many thanks also. It was not my intention to compare so much as to find out what the SH limits were. As I understand it, it would be routine to plan and fly a trip from Aldergrove to Inverness with a 100' cloudbase and 1km visibility. I now have a much clearer picture.
regards
Boslandew
Many thanks also. It was not my intention to compare so much as to find out what the SH limits were. As I understand it, it would be routine to plan and fly a trip from Aldergrove to Inverness with a 100' cloudbase and 1km visibility. I now have a much clearer picture.
regards
Boslandew
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
SFFP, Thanks, I knew the limits were something like that but couldn't remember for certain.
Boslandew, In RAFG the RAFSH day visibility limits were even lower, I'm certain it was 500 metres; I certainly recall many times sitting at Gutersloh in "Red" (airfield closed due wx) conditions waiting for the station met office to declare the next level, (Amber) weather and off we'd all go, all over the place. We also had a very limited icing clearance (+4 degrees in cloud) in the Puma in those days when the aircraft still had open and unprotected engine intakes.
Those who try to say this Chinook crew had no business flying in poor weather have really no idea how the SH Force had to routinely operate.
Boslandew, In RAFG the RAFSH day visibility limits were even lower, I'm certain it was 500 metres; I certainly recall many times sitting at Gutersloh in "Red" (airfield closed due wx) conditions waiting for the station met office to declare the next level, (Amber) weather and off we'd all go, all over the place. We also had a very limited icing clearance (+4 degrees in cloud) in the Puma in those days when the aircraft still had open and unprotected engine intakes.
Those who try to say this Chinook crew had no business flying in poor weather have really no idea how the SH Force had to routinely operate.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Just remember, we could go to 100' and 1km, that doesn't mean it was like this on the day. I flew a training sortie in the Cushendall area at the same time EXACTLY as the accident (as previously mentioned, I walked out with the Chinook crew). Although the weather was poor, we could see the Scottish Coast from Cushendall. Cloud was low, visibilty was good. This is not a theory, it is FACT.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto
Quite right - a good starting point for discussion of the weather - and the Antrim hills in the area you were in got as high as 1500ft ish, didn't they? - so imagine being at say, 500 - typical conditions in that area, clear for a long way if you are low.
AND so typical, given that the air at sea level was damn near saturated that day along with that strong prevailing wind blowing off the sea onto the Mull, you could count/absolutely guarantee/ on there being generated the ground hugging mist I have described.
This would have followed the slope up until it merged with the orographic cloud - a grey slope running up into a grey ceiling.
You could see the landmass - with occassional blotches of ground but otherwise ground detail obscurred - bad for judging distance.
It's only a day's drive for you lot in the UK - go up there for a few days in the summer and picnic there in the late afternoon when you have a southerly ish forecast of moderate strength (quite common) - and wait - better, go fishing just off the shore in a little boat. That is if you really want to get a flavour of the conditions. Oops, you've all missed this summer? - well number 14 will be around next year.
Understand the conditions as a starting point - then work out what could have happened.
There is no evidence of a/c fault - there is evidence of their having some extra task.
Quite right - a good starting point for discussion of the weather - and the Antrim hills in the area you were in got as high as 1500ft ish, didn't they? - so imagine being at say, 500 - typical conditions in that area, clear for a long way if you are low.
AND so typical, given that the air at sea level was damn near saturated that day along with that strong prevailing wind blowing off the sea onto the Mull, you could count/absolutely guarantee/ on there being generated the ground hugging mist I have described.
This would have followed the slope up until it merged with the orographic cloud - a grey slope running up into a grey ceiling.
You could see the landmass - with occassional blotches of ground but otherwise ground detail obscurred - bad for judging distance.
It's only a day's drive for you lot in the UK - go up there for a few days in the summer and picnic there in the late afternoon when you have a southerly ish forecast of moderate strength (quite common) - and wait - better, go fishing just off the shore in a little boat. That is if you really want to get a flavour of the conditions. Oops, you've all missed this summer? - well number 14 will be around next year.
Understand the conditions as a starting point - then work out what could have happened.
There is no evidence of a/c fault - there is evidence of their having some extra task.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WK
Many things "could have happened". I was appalled to read of the history of FADEC failings. The vital point is that "could have happened" does not add up to "Gross negligence" or even negligence. Your met theory is no doubt correct. It doesn't 'prove' anything.
regards
Boslandew
Many things "could have happened". I was appalled to read of the history of FADEC failings. The vital point is that "could have happened" does not add up to "Gross negligence" or even negligence. Your met theory is no doubt correct. It doesn't 'prove' anything.
regards
Boslandew
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldomfitforpurpose
Apologies for the tardy reply.
With regard to the visibility at the time & place of the accident; the closest you are going to get, I would think, is the evidence given to the BOI by Mr Ellacott who was hillwalking at the time.
"I then heard the sound of a propellor going around for about four or five seconds and then I heard an explosion...Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". ... "It was difficult to say how far I was from the point of the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards".
In addition the AAIB concluded that, at initial impact, the A/C groundspeed was "of the order of 150 kts" ..... the aircraft was erect, rolled slightly left and pitched approximatly 30 degrees nose up". The forward visibility towards the high ground immediately ahead would,therefore, have been extremely limited by aircraft attitude as well as the weather.
Apologies for the tardy reply.
With regard to the visibility at the time & place of the accident; the closest you are going to get, I would think, is the evidence given to the BOI by Mr Ellacott who was hillwalking at the time.
"I then heard the sound of a propellor going around for about four or five seconds and then I heard an explosion...Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". ... "It was difficult to say how far I was from the point of the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards".
In addition the AAIB concluded that, at initial impact, the A/C groundspeed was "of the order of 150 kts" ..... the aircraft was erect, rolled slightly left and pitched approximatly 30 degrees nose up". The forward visibility towards the high ground immediately ahead would,therefore, have been extremely limited by aircraft attitude as well as the weather.
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
Hi Cazatou,
I hope all is well with you.
Why is Mr Elacott's testimony deemed more important/compelling that that of the yachtsman, Mr Holbrook? If nothing else, both men's evidence should be afforded equal status?
I doubt that would have been a long term flight profile.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I hope all is well with you.
Why is Mr Elacott's testimony deemed more important/compelling that that of the yachtsman, Mr Holbrook? If nothing else, both men's evidence should be afforded equal status?
The forward visibility towards the high ground immediately ahead would,therefore, have been extremely limited by aircraft attitude as well as the weather.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 15th Nov 2007 at 11:45.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed this thread closely over the years with great interest, my background is fast jet and therefore I am would not presume to comment on the flying side of things, the SH world is vastly different to any fixed wing game.
That in itself ought to rule out the senior officers overturning of the original finding, as they were from a similar background to mine.
I did however have the great pleasure of knowing John Tapper well, having 'done time' with him in SOAF. I flew with him on several ocassions both in my a/c and in his 'cab'
One thing that I can say for a fact is that I have rarely, if ever, flown with a more professional aviator, most of us here have flown military aircraft and know that some risk is involved. I do not believe that we will ever find out the truth in this tragic case.
I do know that Tapps was a damn fine, professional and safe operator. If I were to put my family down the back of a helicopter, he would have been my choice as Captain. Nothing I have read since has changed that opinion.
Wih continued thoughts for all the families, and gratitude to all that have kept this campaign alive.
Spoff
That in itself ought to rule out the senior officers overturning of the original finding, as they were from a similar background to mine.
I did however have the great pleasure of knowing John Tapper well, having 'done time' with him in SOAF. I flew with him on several ocassions both in my a/c and in his 'cab'
One thing that I can say for a fact is that I have rarely, if ever, flown with a more professional aviator, most of us here have flown military aircraft and know that some risk is involved. I do not believe that we will ever find out the truth in this tragic case.
I do know that Tapps was a damn fine, professional and safe operator. If I were to put my family down the back of a helicopter, he would have been my choice as Captain. Nothing I have read since has changed that opinion.
Wih continued thoughts for all the families, and gratitude to all that have kept this campaign alive.
Spoff
Last edited by spoff; 16th Nov 2007 at 12:27. Reason: grammer
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
Spoff,
very many thanks for your kind words. I have pointed them out to Jon's father, Mike, who sends his thanks.
I'm sure I saw a question relating to 'when are we going to see the Secretary of State for Defence'? The simple answer is - diary compatability. As soon as we can find the gap in appointments, we will.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
very many thanks for your kind words. I have pointed them out to Jon's father, Mike, who sends his thanks.
I'm sure I saw a question relating to 'when are we going to see the Secretary of State for Defence'? The simple answer is - diary compatability. As soon as we can find the gap in appointments, we will.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
Hope you are well. It is snowing lightly here at the moment!
I take your point but Mr Ellacott's evidence is consistant with the evidence given by Mr Murchie (a Met Observer), Mrs Murchie, Mr Lamont (a Met Observer), Mrs Lamont, Mr Brocher, Mr Gresswell, Mr Crabtree and Mrs Crabtree.
All of these either heard or felt the Chinook crash and thus their recollections are specifically linked to the time of the crash. On the other hand Mr Holbrook, from the evidence he gave to the FAI, was manouvering around some fishing boats as the Chinook went past and would not have been aware of the crash until it was broadcast by the media at about 1910 hrs. In addition Mr Holbrook's evidence at the FAI regarding the weather differed significantly from that he gave to the BOI in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
Thus we have witnesses whose evidence covers 5 different locations on the Mull at the time of the crash. Mr Holbrook's evidence is related to events before the aircraft reached the Mull with no significant event associated with his observations AT THAT TIME.
Best Wishes
Hope you are well. It is snowing lightly here at the moment!
I take your point but Mr Ellacott's evidence is consistant with the evidence given by Mr Murchie (a Met Observer), Mrs Murchie, Mr Lamont (a Met Observer), Mrs Lamont, Mr Brocher, Mr Gresswell, Mr Crabtree and Mrs Crabtree.
All of these either heard or felt the Chinook crash and thus their recollections are specifically linked to the time of the crash. On the other hand Mr Holbrook, from the evidence he gave to the FAI, was manouvering around some fishing boats as the Chinook went past and would not have been aware of the crash until it was broadcast by the media at about 1910 hrs. In addition Mr Holbrook's evidence at the FAI regarding the weather differed significantly from that he gave to the BOI in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
Thus we have witnesses whose evidence covers 5 different locations on the Mull at the time of the crash. Mr Holbrook's evidence is related to events before the aircraft reached the Mull with no significant event associated with his observations AT THAT TIME.
Best Wishes
Mr Holbrook's evidence is related to events before the aircraft reached the Mull with no significant event associated with his observations AT THAT TIME.
It is therefore surely the only real testimony which is relevant to their claims?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypotheses versus Facts
JP
There you go again quoting the AMs' hypotheses as if they were "facts". If indeed, having changed waypoints (which MOD has agreed in writing would also normally mean an intent to immediately change course) they continued in a fully serviceable aircraft to fly directly at the Mull then as well as being barking mad they would have been negligent. I am certain that they were not barking mad so maybe something went wrong - as an example read the AAIB report - it certainly does not rule out a pre-crash control restriction. Neither you nor I will ever know what happened, and even the AOCinC said this. Just for that reason, let alone the ever mounting evidence under FOI of a lack of airworthiness, the verdict is wrong. To claim that you know they were negligent is, I suggest, a comment on your own ability to make a fair and even ethical judgement.
JB
There you go again quoting the AMs' hypotheses as if they were "facts". If indeed, having changed waypoints (which MOD has agreed in writing would also normally mean an intent to immediately change course) they continued in a fully serviceable aircraft to fly directly at the Mull then as well as being barking mad they would have been negligent. I am certain that they were not barking mad so maybe something went wrong - as an example read the AAIB report - it certainly does not rule out a pre-crash control restriction. Neither you nor I will ever know what happened, and even the AOCinC said this. Just for that reason, let alone the ever mounting evidence under FOI of a lack of airworthiness, the verdict is wrong. To claim that you know they were negligent is, I suggest, a comment on your own ability to make a fair and even ethical judgement.
JB
I am certain that they were not barking mad so maybe something went wrong
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1
Data extracted from the SuperTANS showed that Waypoint Change to Corran was selected 0.81 NM from the first waypoint (0.95 NM from impact).
Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) told the BOI that he had been some 2NM southwest of the Lighthouse when he saw the Chinook fly past his yacht. He stated to the BOI that the weather was as follows "The visibility was about one mile and limited by haze".
Data extracted from the SuperTANS showed that Waypoint Change to Corran was selected 0.81 NM from the first waypoint (0.95 NM from impact).
Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) told the BOI that he had been some 2NM southwest of the Lighthouse when he saw the Chinook fly past his yacht. He stated to the BOI that the weather was as follows "The visibility was about one mile and limited by haze".
John Purdey,
I wasn't quoting you, just stating that your consistent position supported Wratten's thinking, that the crew were grossly negligent at waypoint change.
However, I will quote you now, from June 2006:
And again from August 2006:
Kind regards, p1
I wasn't quoting you, just stating that your consistent position supported Wratten's thinking, that the crew were grossly negligent at waypoint change.
However, I will quote you now, from June 2006:
But I do agree that we are going around in circles (once again!). JP
(This is becoming very repetative again and again and again, so no more from me)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather Minima
In recent posts on this thread and in answer to my queries, the weather minima for the SH force have been given as 100' and 1000 metres, even 500 metres in Germany. I made a specific query about whether such minima would apply to a non-tactical flight and there has been no answer that would suggest there would be any difference between operational/non-operational flying. I expressed surprise that a flight from Aldergrove to Inverness carrying civilians could be made using these minima.
In the Governments reply to the the statement from the House of Lords Committee, (and no doubt elsewhere), it is stated the the VFR limits for helicopters below 140 knots are clear of cloud, in sight of the ground and with a forward visibility of 1000 metres. For helicopters above 140 knots, as in this case, 5.5 kms and a greater separation (not specified) from cloud is required.
There is a considerable difference between the SH force minima and the VFR limits quoted here. Can anyone provide an authoritative answer as to which minima would have applied for this flight? It seems to me to have considerable relevance to the point at which the conduct of the flight was deemed to have become negligent.
In the Governments reply to the the statement from the House of Lords Committee, (and no doubt elsewhere), it is stated the the VFR limits for helicopters below 140 knots are clear of cloud, in sight of the ground and with a forward visibility of 1000 metres. For helicopters above 140 knots, as in this case, 5.5 kms and a greater separation (not specified) from cloud is required.
There is a considerable difference between the SH force minima and the VFR limits quoted here. Can anyone provide an authoritative answer as to which minima would have applied for this flight? It seems to me to have considerable relevance to the point at which the conduct of the flight was deemed to have become negligent.