Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Baston Glad to see you got the message on DR. The Navigation Manual (3456A?) gives you figures to work too. I also thought that I beat these figures "most of the time", but it is unreasonable to expect any crew to beat them "all of the time." Now go back to my original scenario. You have shown at Aldergrove that the visibility is 3 nms and have seen nothing to suggest it has changed. You have the visibility you require to acquire the coast with a considerable safety margin. Why not transit at normal speed? Remember the C130 example I gave. Approaching the Mull I call "penetrate, penetrate go", the Captain will obey the script and abandon low level. However, once safely on the ground I will be asked to justify the call. Can you imagine the reaction if I were to say. "Look, I know the vis was 3nms and we were flying in legal conditions, but I wasn,t very comfortable that close to the margins." If I did that more than once the Squadron would quickly find a Navigator with more b*lls, and I would be flying a desk.
May I draw your attention to the words of Lord Jauncy of Tullichettle in his opening remarks in the House of Lords debate 5 November 2002. To be fair to his Lordship; I would point out that these remarks were his response to a criticism from the MOD regarding the HOL Report.
"If the manner of flying was such that an aircraft was exposed to serious risk, one would have thought that a properly trained and competent pilot should forsee the probable consequences of incurring that risk. If the results were fatal or catastrophic, then I should have thought that he would be negligent"
I must confess that I was not present that evening but I presume that the Official HOL transcript is accurate. If that is so, then his Lordship and I are in complete agreement.
My 'way with words' enables me to ask - did you fail to notice the very first word in your quote or fail to understand its meaning?
If
I have no dispute with his statement, as long as wild inferences are not extruded as fact by others who do not know the facts.This quote from the HoL fits you to a 'tee':
"There is no doubt in my mind that some of your Lordships who are confident of the propriety of the verdict of gross negligence have recounted the story of what happened as a narrative, telling us what the pilots did and where they went wrong and asserting that they were rash, that they did not take the weather into account and that they were flying too fast and too low. Like many narratives, it is delivered with great conviction. The people who have told it have frequently said that it is the only realistic or credible explanation. That is the power of the good storyteller, who proceeds on the assumption that they know how it must have been and then we all believe it.As regards the standard of proof and there being no doubt whatsoever of the propriety of the verdict, one must begin to doubt—as, indeed, people, including the unanimous body of the Select Committee, did doubt—that that standard had been reached. One may argue that it is an impossibly high standard and that there can be no past events for which it is proper to say that there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards what happened. Nevertheless, those are the relevant words."
Chugalug2. Quote "I merely suggest that the Operating/Airworthiness Authority Accident Investigation, ie the BoI, failed to investigate that most glaring deficiency in the aircraft". Not good enough; you said there was a conspiracy. (OED definition: "A combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose". While you are looking up the meaning of conspiracy for yourself, please also check on your word dichotomy. Apologies for reverting to my DS mode, but you do ask for it! Regards. John
Chugalug2.
Quote "I merely suggest that the Operating/Airworthiness Authority Accident Investigation, ie the BoI, failed to investigate that most glaring deficiency in the aircraft". Not good enough; you said there was a conspiracy. (OED definition: "A combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose". While you are looking up the meaning of conspiracy for yourself, please also check on your word dichotomy.
No, it is you that is "Not good enough". You've snipped one single sentence out of Chugalug2's post which doesn't support the word conspiracy, whereas the post as a whole does. Whether it is justified or not is a different matter...
Also, for the word "dichotomy", I found the following definition: "something with seemingly contradicting terms".
I feel that fits the idea of the same people releasing the aircraft into service and being called to judge on an accident in which its airworthiness is called into question.
Chugalug2, apologies for stepping in. I couldn't resist.
TN
Last edited by Thor Nogson; 30th Jun 2009 at 13:04.
Reason: Spelling, and a minor clarification...
bast0n, I was simply trying to clarify my last post, and didn't do it very well. Just ignore. I think we have flogged the TANS error, DR accuracy, and visual illusion theory to death. I tried to show that a combination of a small Navaid error, coupled with visual illusion, could lead to a very serious situation. At best, it is only a theory with a small probability of being factual. I still think it more likely than three experienced, cautious individuals deliberately planning to crest a hill by less than 300ft in IMC, and then hitting it because they were 400m off track.
Thor Nogson. I'm sure Chug is capable of answering for himself, but i have re-read his several posts and, as he himself tells us "I would summarise my thoughts as any and every theory of why this aircraft crashed become a candidate when it is perceived that the Aircraft Operator and the Air Worthiness Authority are in a conspiracy to cover the real reason up. It really could not be more clear than that. JP
Not good enough; you said there was a conspiracy. (OED definition: "A combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose". While you are looking up the meaning of conspiracy for yourself, please also check on your word dichotomy. Apologies for reverting to my DS mode, but you do ask for it!
Are you ever not in your DS "mode" JP? Both you and caz seem to think that the main function here is the marking and correcting of homework. I'm not going to enter into the dictionary definition game with either of you. I think I've made clear what I have to say. Others may agree or disagree. This thread is about more serious matters than cleverness. It is about a terrible tragedy, a gross injustice and the fervent desire that no more of either be suffered if at all possible. No doubt there is some clever Latin tag to cover all that. In which case could we please be spared it? PS Thanks for your intervention Thor, I see you also got marked down. See you in the dunces' corner! Lol!
It is about a terrible tragedy, a gross injustice and the fervent desire that no more of either be suffered if at all possible
Quote:
What I can't understand is why anyone would spend so much time defending the status quo, unless they have a vested interest?
Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence and all the posts think that this crew really did make their final error. Chastising the posters for a point of view that actually holds up pretty well in many areas is not conducive to a rational arguement. Keep posting chaps and let us all keep personality out of it. It obscures the view.
WHY DID THE AIRCRAFT CAPTAIN NOT HAVE THE REGIONAL QNH SET ON HIS ALTIMETER?
A simple question regarding something that is axiomatic for every Service Pilot who operates at low level.
Failure to comply with such a basic requirement during a passenger carrying transit flight in poor meteorological conditions is incomprehensible; unless he was preoccupied with listening to the Commercial Radio station selected on the ADF.
think that this crew really did make their final error
- thank you, baston - you have eloquently summed up the whole point of the 'campaign'. The operative word is 'think' - which sits most uncomfortably with 'no doubt whatsoever', or do you understand an opinion to be concrete proof?
Thor/Chugaz Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence and all the posts think that this crew really did make their final error. Chastising the posters for a point of view that actually holds up pretty well in many areas is not conducive to a rational arguement. Keep posting chaps and let us all keep personality out of it. It obscures the view.
Did I bring personality into it? If so, I apologise.
I understand that some people do believe the crew made a serious error, and I have to say I think that seems to me to be the most likely cause.
But, if that was what I was 100% convinced of, which tallies with the official verdict, I don't think I would bother to spend any time refuting claims to the opposite. When I said I don't understand, that wasn't a deprecating comment. I genuinely don't understand why you, JP and Caz are so keen to see the verdict upheld.
Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence
All the evidence, bast0n? Not sure how anyone has managed that miracle, unless of course you mean the recorded evidence. The elephant in this room is the unrecorded evidence and the uncalled witnesses to the Chinook Mk2's lack of airworthiness by the BoI. That of course follows a well trodden path by BoI's. 10 people die because an RAF Tactical Transport can be brought down by a single round into a fuel tank, the RAF declares itself "unaware" of repeated calls for ESF to be fitted for decades. It takes a media campaign and a coalition of NoK's and members on PPRuNe to finally make Tactical Transports fit for use in the Tactical environment. 14 people die and it takes a coroner to tell the RAF that the Nimrod is unairworthy and should be grounded until made airworthy, rather than the BoI coming to the same conclusion. Of course the greatest RAF tragedy of them all is this one. 29 people die in an aircraft type that is patently unairworthy. The BoI scarcely considers the issue and the RAF finds the cause of this accident to be the Gross Negligence of the pilots. Does it not occur to you that if BA were its own Airworthiness Authority and its own Accident Investigator that BA crews would be not only working for nothing but also the principal "reason" for its accidents? There would of course be an outcry if the CAA were to ever pull such a stunt (and not disrespecting BA here, I'm sure they would be just as horrified at such an arrangement). Yet this is essentially the arrangement under which UK Military Airworthiness is supposedly assured and maintained. Worked well enough in my days, it was properly funded and respected. I suggest that neither is the case now and this very discredited self regulating system must be changed. To avoid future avoidable accidents and to avoid future needless loss of life a separate and independent MAA must be formed along with an MAAIB to investigate the ones that it fails to avoid.
TN:
Quote:
What I can't understand is why anyone would spend so much time defending the status quo, unless they have a vested interest?
Quite
Last edited by Chugalug2; 30th Jun 2009 at 21:02.
Reason: words dear boy, words!
The elephant in this room is the unrecorded evidence
It really is time for you to produce it.
Thor
Quote:
I understand that some people do believe the crew made a serious error, and I have to say I think that seems to me to be the most likely cause.
But, if that was what I was 100% convinced of, which tallies with the official verdict, I don't think I would bother to spend any time refuting claims to the opposite. When I said I don't understand, that wasn't a deprecating comment. I genuinely don't understand why you, JP and Caz are so keen to see the verdict upheld.
If you read my posts I have never either supported or denied the verdict of the ROs. I do believe however that the cause of this accident lies not with the airworthiness or serviceability of this particular aircraft, but rather with a tragic error or errors by the crew on the day.
At the end of the day those in charge of making judgement upon such tradgedies have only the evidence to hand upon which to make those judgments. They are probably not privy to the "elephant in the room" or other imaginative scenarios.
If you read my posts I have never either supported or denied the verdict of the ROs.
Ok, I can see what you are saying. Having said this, your last few posts have the phrases "think", "believe", "hold up pretty well". They don't seem to me to be the same as "no doubt whatsoever".
Is your position, then, that having looked at all the evidence you have available, pilot error is the most likely cause? If so, we are in agreement.
The main point is bast0n, that a large number of people on this thread are not convinced that the "no doubt whatsoever" burden of proof has been met. They include experts in Chinook flying and Airworthiness. Their combined experience trumps yours, mine , Cazatou, Wratten and Day by a considerable margin.
Cazatou, Breakfast negligence, Flight Planning negligence, Crew Duty negligence. Now we have Listening to the Radio negligence. What next?
Is your position, then, that having looked at all the evidence you have available, pilot error is the most likely cause? If so, we are in agreement.
Yes.
Dalek
Quote:
The main point is bast0n, that a large number of people on this thread are not convinced that the "no doubt whatsoever" burden of proof has been met. They include experts in Chinook flying and Airworthiness. Their combined experience trumps yours, mine , Cazatou, Wratten and Day by a considerable margin.
So we are agreed it is the most likely cause. But are you sure, with no doubt whatsoever, that it was the cause?
For me, there is enough doubt. The thing I'm most curious about at the moment is how and why they got that close. If they weren't actually intending to do something there, it seems incredulous, rather than negligent that they should have entered the cloud/fog/mist that they must have before impact.
