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.
An ignore list is the BBS equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting loudly "I can't hear you"... All it lacks is the drama of the foot stamping.
Quote:
what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
I'd suggest that it could have mattered a lot. Since no-one will ever know the conversation could, just as easily, have been:-
Pilot 1: I can't move the controls, can you?
Pilot 2: Err.. No...
Pilot 1: Oh Pooh...
In fact the only conversations that would have been worrisome would have been one where no-one was talking or no-one was talking about the conduct of the flight or the state of the aircraft in the last ten seconds leading up to the crash. So, yes. What the two pilots said to each other would have been very important to have known.
Meanwhile, Chugalug you said on 16th April: "There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big".
Like several colleagues out here in the sticks, I cannot hold my breath any longer. Can you yet share your secret with us or at least give us a clue?
JP, you are the only one going around in circles because you know full well that you have asked this question of me before, at post 5063, and received a series of answers thereafter (for as ever you were not content with just one). For everyone else; he is referring to a post I wrote to Walter in which I acknowledged one of the possibilities that he had posted. His theory is that a clandestine landing was being attempted on the Mull LZ. He feels that the aircraft could have been misdirected deliberately in order that it crashed and if that were so there was then advantage both to terrorists and the state. I am on record as stating that I don’t think that such a landing was being attempted anyway let alone being misdirected purposely or otherwise!
Brian
Pardon my frustration I expressed recently at the Group but I really think there is something very specific you can follow up here.
I had pointed to a transcript which surely you would have access to (the BOI).
I had pointed out a specific piece of blacking-out that may help us all understand possible actions in this flight.
I had (previously to your prompt) asked specific questions under FOI and am …. waiting for the MOD to respond.
I have thought of a way that the answer on that classified equipment may be obtained without their having to disclose what the equipment was to the public domain in the case that it was not relevent: could the Mull Group not, as an interested party, ask someone they trust who had eyeballed the un-abridged transcript to comment on whether it was the CPLS system or not? If there is no one available who could remember, could a deal not be done whereby a trusted 3rd party, say a senior judge or the like, who the state could also trust to be discrete could eyeball the un-abridged transcript and answer only in the scope of whether the blacked out text (describing the classified equipment) was “Covert Personnel Locator System” or not?
You may not like the path I am following but it at least gives you (the Group) two angles to try to get a review of the case (if they can be established to some reasonable extent):
!. If there was a piece of kit fitted that could have been used for local navigation in any way yet has not been disclosed, then the original BOI would have been inadequate;
2. If there had been an extra task put on them that has not been disclosed then again the original BOI would have been inadequate.
Thanks for your 5310. 1. I have not seen the letter to which you refer, but the quote you give is along the lines you suggest. 2. The para seems less than clear to me.
We have, of course been here before, but just to repeat one last time; if the Chinooks were not airworthy, exacly what rectification was undertaken? If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.
JP, the way I read that RWTS paragraph is that they were not convinced the aircraft was safe, a relatively small step short of saying it was unsafe. They had questions about a number of FADEC issues that they did not understand and were not willing to endorse the aircraft until they received a satisfactory answer. This stance seems to be entirely reasonable to me and, if ignored, someone in a position of power accepted an extraordinary level of personal risk.
I agree that if RWTS stand by that statement and no changes have been made to the aircraft, then it is still not airworthy. Furthermore, if one were to apply civilian standards, the aircraft would never be airworthy unless a back-to-birth process were properly followed.
We have, of course been here before, but just to repeat one last time; if the Chinooks were not airworthy, exacly what rectification was undertaken? If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.
As a matter of interest, is it still a requirement that vital connectors have to be checked every 15 minutes?
If not, then something has changed.
Of course, if the paper trail does not reflect reality, anything might have changed.
John Purdey, It seems that our game of "truth and consequences" has come to an end.
You have learned well from your "Masters", young apprentice. Only enter into evidence that which suits the cause. Studiously ignore everything else.
No matter. Your answer to my Q1 give me all I need.
If the Boeing and TANS simulations were not true and accurate portrayals of events, then it is impossible to deduce any "facts" from them. You admitted this for the first time.
By producing simulation evidence to the HOL as "facts", Sir William and Sir John were deliberatlely attempting to mislead them.
This could only be due to the fact:
a. They were deliberately being "less than honest."
b. They had been badly briefed by their Staffs. Either way,it was a pretty shoddy attempt to influence the outcome. The "dumb" civilians were clever enough to see through the attempt.
When in a hole stop digging. It is you that insisted on simple yes / no answers but were completely unable to follow your own instructions.
"what did the two pilots say to each other, What does it matter."
Every competent Accident Investigating Branch in the world regards CVR evidence almost as important as ADR evidence. It is essential to find out not only what happened but why it happened. If you cannot see the importance of this you are clearly no expert on Flight Safety or Accident investigation matters.
thank you for your response to my last. If you click the link labelled 'Channel 4 Website' in my #5310 this will bring up the letter. I would appreciate you having a look at it and giving your considered response to my questions:
(1) If you agree that I have transcribed the paragraph accurately.
(2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe.
Now in response to your question to me:
Quote:
If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.
I am not qualified to make a statement on the aircraft airworthiness, but I seem to remember a lot of work going on on the Mk2 Chinook post arrival from Boeing (and both pre and post the Mull). I also seem to recall that some of this work was to the FADEC. However, I must place the caveat on this statement that it was not my trade area and my mind could be playing tricks. This is the reason I asked Atlantic Cowboy, who claims to be involved in the investigation, if an airworthiness audit was carried out (#4070 ) an answer which you agreed was required (your #4355). Since then Atlantic Cowboy has not been about.
An ignore list is the BBS equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting loudly "I can't hear you"... All it lacks is the drama of the foot stamping.
AA,
The most satisfying thing about being placed on their ignore list is the knowledge that the questions those being ignored have posed, because of there simplicity and absolute unambiguity have proved so troublesome to answer that "ignore" is the only option
8-15
Atlantic Cowboy is most definitely around right right now, he is simply posting under another name
I seem unable to bring up the letter to which you refer, but I am happy to accept what you say. In answer to your question ie:
"((2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe".
What did OC RWTS do about it? The allegation was that AOC, CinC and even CAS, and their staffs, knew that the aircraft was not fit, and then insisted that it be flown, and when this machine crashed, they (to quote another contributer) "stitched up the pilots". Do you believe that?
Did RWTS follow up their unease, and if not then why not? And, if RWTS did not follow up, then I do not see that we are any further forward, even if you believe (and as you know I do not so believe), that the crash was caused by some kind of technical failure rather than gross negligence by the crew
I hope my reply will not provoke yet another repetition of the familiar arguments!
With all good wishes, and thankyou for your courteous post JP
As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions in paragraph 6 are satisfied.
With my ex-RAF staff officer hat on, I'm not sure RWTS had anything else they could do; they have made a very strongly and direct statement and not the typical read-between-the-lines staff officer type message. If you are wondering about their post-accident actions, then that is indeed a different question and well worth pursuing, regardless of the perceived cause of the crash.
Last edited by Cows getting bigger : 13th July 2009 at 21:58.
Linear Mode
