Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugaqlug2
I wish you would stop posting twisted versions of the scenario I have tried to describe – it should not be necessary and correcting wastes time.
<< … you propose that they miscalculated their position by putting all their faith into "the equipment" before making a "cowboy" high speed approach into an IMC obscured LZ, ...>>
I believe that I have described the conditions a bit differently (see recent previous posts).
Calling a fast approach “high speed” shows a misunderstanding of the manouevre – why not ask your colleagues or others in aviation what it implies for rotorcraft.
Many pilots approaching decks of frigates or oil rigs regularly put their faith in a TACAN for judging their closing range – it is so important to know the range exactly and it is so easy, even in clear weather, to misjudge it visually.
If they were misled somehow by the data they were receving and thought they had ½ mile or more to go than they actually did, then they were denied the common practice of having a loadmaster stick his head out of the window – you see, they were still way over 120 kts air speed as they crossed the shoreline, which, I suggest, would mean that the window was still shut; had they got down to 80 kts or less (which they could have done with ½ mile more coasting with the drag washing off their speed) then it would be expected that the loadie was looking out and would have seen the detail of the shoreline better as it approached – as it was, everyone was looking through perspex – the pilots concentrating on looking for the LZ threshold ahead as the shoreline (at their altitude) was lost under the nose – it would have come up unexpectedly rapidly and the loadie may only have recognised just how close they had got to it as it passed by to the side – this would have left a maximum of 5 seconds to alert the pilots and for them to react (on the track they took, shoreline to impact less than 9 secs less the 4 secs of evasive manouevre).
Beagle
<<Perhaps the flying saucer which landed Wally's little green men with their wacky wirelesses caused a rift in the space-time continuum? >>
Why are you afraid of calling the equipment by its proper name? Why don't you acknowledge when it came into service and how it was used? Are you saying that you are unaware of the presence at the time at Macrihanish of an American SF unit that was equipped and practiced in the use of said equipment?
I wish you would stop posting twisted versions of the scenario I have tried to describe – it should not be necessary and correcting wastes time.
<< … you propose that they miscalculated their position by putting all their faith into "the equipment" before making a "cowboy" high speed approach into an IMC obscured LZ, ...>>
I believe that I have described the conditions a bit differently (see recent previous posts).
Calling a fast approach “high speed” shows a misunderstanding of the manouevre – why not ask your colleagues or others in aviation what it implies for rotorcraft.
Many pilots approaching decks of frigates or oil rigs regularly put their faith in a TACAN for judging their closing range – it is so important to know the range exactly and it is so easy, even in clear weather, to misjudge it visually.
If they were misled somehow by the data they were receving and thought they had ½ mile or more to go than they actually did, then they were denied the common practice of having a loadmaster stick his head out of the window – you see, they were still way over 120 kts air speed as they crossed the shoreline, which, I suggest, would mean that the window was still shut; had they got down to 80 kts or less (which they could have done with ½ mile more coasting with the drag washing off their speed) then it would be expected that the loadie was looking out and would have seen the detail of the shoreline better as it approached – as it was, everyone was looking through perspex – the pilots concentrating on looking for the LZ threshold ahead as the shoreline (at their altitude) was lost under the nose – it would have come up unexpectedly rapidly and the loadie may only have recognised just how close they had got to it as it passed by to the side – this would have left a maximum of 5 seconds to alert the pilots and for them to react (on the track they took, shoreline to impact less than 9 secs less the 4 secs of evasive manouevre).
Beagle
<<Perhaps the flying saucer which landed Wally's little green men with their wacky wirelesses caused a rift in the space-time continuum? >>
Why are you afraid of calling the equipment by its proper name? Why don't you acknowledge when it came into service and how it was used? Are you saying that you are unaware of the presence at the time at Macrihanish of an American SF unit that was equipped and practiced in the use of said equipment?
Walter Kennedy:
Walter, if I have done that then I apologise, it certainly has never been my intention. You are right to say it is not necessary. However I do try to comment on what I perceive to be your scenario in my own words and from my perspective. That surely is allowable. Thus "cowboy" is shorthand for a procedure lacking airmanship, which is what I believe the one you describe to be. Comparing a handheld transceiver with a ship's calibrated and approved TACAN installation is nonsense Walter, and I suspect that you know it is. Your procedure is reckless in anything other than VMC. Anyone who authorised it any other way was reckless. Anyone who flew it any other way was reckless. It may well be that it is used any other way in operational environments, looking for downed aircrew in theatre for example. This was no such scenario. They had 25 pax on board and were supposedly en route to Fort George. If what you say is right then the pilots were indeed responsible for this accident, though to what degree is debatable I'll allow. Sorry Walter that's my take. As I keep saying better someone more qualified than I gives it the "DS" verdict.
Chugaqlug2
I wish you would stop posting twisted versions of the scenario I have tried to describe – it should not be necessary and correcting wastes time.
I wish you would stop posting twisted versions of the scenario I have tried to describe – it should not be necessary and correcting wastes time.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Collins,
Your analogy is accurate and relevant.
Bast0n,
Appart from flying into the ground, at a place we all acknowledge was (almost certainly) in fog.
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
Your analogy is accurate and relevant.
Bast0n,
Appart from flying into the ground, at a place we all acknowledge was (almost certainly) in fog.
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalek
I think you need to read the posts, once more, from the begining. I am not sure this thread has any life left in it - the going around in circles has been going on for too long.
I and others think the crew made a dreadful mistake - you and others don't - so why not leave it there and let the politicians sort it out - don't hold your breath chaps...................
Appart from flying into the ground, at a place we all acknowledge was (almost certainly) in fog.
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
I and others think the crew made a dreadful mistake - you and others don't - so why not leave it there and let the politicians sort it out - don't hold your breath chaps...................
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by baston
I and others think the crew made a dreadful mistake
Originally Posted by baston
Just try to stick with the facts as they are known
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
What a very inspired post - adds so much to the debate....well done!
- yes, Baston, circles indeed, and you amongst a few others are creating them. I suspect your understanding of English is imperfect. Where exactly does 'think' translate to 'known'?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appart from flying into the ground, at a place we all acknowledge was (almost certainly) in fog.
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
Allow me to demonstrate. In "normal" mathematics the sum of all the parts equals the final result:-
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15
Let's assume that 15 is, in fact, a finding of "gross negligence" and the integers added are pieces of damning evidence that, when combined, quite correctly lead to the finding.
In Baston/JP/Caz Maths we find the following:-
1 + x + y + z + 5 = 15
In this form of maths we have a start point and and end point yet there are, (by their own admission), several unknowns. Because the start, (1 = Aldergrove), and the end, (5 = the crash site), are the same as in normal maths in Baston/JP/Caz Maths it's quite reasonable to ignore the unknowns and substitute the appropriate figure that results in 15 as the total. Job done, off to the pub.
Before long they will be telling us there is an invisible being in the sky who made the universe in seven days. They will base this conclusion on a 4,000 year old book written by men that believed lightening was a demonstration of the wrath of said being. After all, we have a start point, (a vacuum), and an end point, (a universe), so it's no less preposterous really, is it?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
I can only recommend that you do some homework on this system off thread – ask colleagues/contacts just how it was used – come back and enlighten us.
Answering your points for the benefit of other readers in the meantime and not really wanting another deluge from you:
The handset is a UHF radio and transponder – factory calibrated, it is intrinsically accurate and either transponds or it doesn't as opposed to giving an inaccurately timed return – same as for on board kit – works or it doesn't – if you are getting consistent returns of the right order (say, in rough agreement with a STANS or what you could visually judge) then you would expect it to be very accurate such that you could forget about the STANS and your fuzzy visual judgement and concentrate on the readout.
Plus it is a radio – the operator on the ground can talk directly to the pilot – as you can so clearly hear helos approaching, you could be standing halfway up the hill in mist but pulling the pilots leg about it being clear on the LZ and you can see them and their approach is fine, etc..
If they had been doing a fast approach but were misled as to their range to go, they could reasonably have expected to have been down to a speed at which the pilots and the loadmaster could have clearly seen the shoreline by the time they got there as opposed to its whizzing past unexpectedly.
They would not have been at fault if they were misled as to their closing range by a third party on the ground using this equipment.
For those of you wondering about about ½ mile extra being sufficient for slowing down enough to actually land there, bearing in mind there was a 30kt tailwind and, while within the capabilities of a Chinook with an experienced crew, there would not have been need to demonstrate the equipment by landing, especially with the passengers on board – just a tight turn at 60kts right over the LZ would have been impressive enough – hence the H-B track aready being set up – just turn around and head NW until picking it up.
I can only recommend that you do some homework on this system off thread – ask colleagues/contacts just how it was used – come back and enlighten us.
Answering your points for the benefit of other readers in the meantime and not really wanting another deluge from you:
The handset is a UHF radio and transponder – factory calibrated, it is intrinsically accurate and either transponds or it doesn't as opposed to giving an inaccurately timed return – same as for on board kit – works or it doesn't – if you are getting consistent returns of the right order (say, in rough agreement with a STANS or what you could visually judge) then you would expect it to be very accurate such that you could forget about the STANS and your fuzzy visual judgement and concentrate on the readout.
Plus it is a radio – the operator on the ground can talk directly to the pilot – as you can so clearly hear helos approaching, you could be standing halfway up the hill in mist but pulling the pilots leg about it being clear on the LZ and you can see them and their approach is fine, etc..
If they had been doing a fast approach but were misled as to their range to go, they could reasonably have expected to have been down to a speed at which the pilots and the loadmaster could have clearly seen the shoreline by the time they got there as opposed to its whizzing past unexpectedly.
They would not have been at fault if they were misled as to their closing range by a third party on the ground using this equipment.
For those of you wondering about about ½ mile extra being sufficient for slowing down enough to actually land there, bearing in mind there was a 30kt tailwind and, while within the capabilities of a Chinook with an experienced crew, there would not have been need to demonstrate the equipment by landing, especially with the passengers on board – just a tight turn at 60kts right over the LZ would have been impressive enough – hence the H-B track aready being set up – just turn around and head NW until picking it up.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Talking about maths, analysis of the known data has it that they had got too close in the conditions (with the expected accuracy of the STANS after a sea crossing) while still at speed, to a position where their actions with instrument settings suggested that they were not in control difficulties, for them to have been acting responsibly in a ferry flight passing by the Mull - a bit harder than integer addition but the calculations are just as robust.
I believe that is the point several people are making that you criticise.
Better start thinking about what else could explain their excursion to the Mull.
Talking about maths, analysis of the known data has it that they had got too close in the conditions (with the expected accuracy of the STANS after a sea crossing) while still at speed, to a position where their actions with instrument settings suggested that they were not in control difficulties, for them to have been acting responsibly in a ferry flight passing by the Mull - a bit harder than integer addition but the calculations are just as robust.
I believe that is the point several people are making that you criticise.
Better start thinking about what else could explain their excursion to the Mull.
Last edited by walter kennedy; 18th Jul 2009 at 12:20. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bast0n,
In one respect you are right. This must soon come to an end.
I have read the thread from the beginning when I posted under a different name.
The only "facts" I have ever seen have come from the simulations. I think the vast majority on this thread and elswhere accept these are now, at the best, theories or hypothesis.
The BOI and the RO's never took this into consideration. Just as they did not consider the Burke evidence. The HOL did so and saw the "facts" for what they were. Mere speculation.
Do you think the HOL were correct to dismiss the simulations?
Without these, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Radar fix, twenty minute black hole, hole in ground. End.
In one respect you are right. This must soon come to an end.
I have read the thread from the beginning when I posted under a different name.
The only "facts" I have ever seen have come from the simulations. I think the vast majority on this thread and elswhere accept these are now, at the best, theories or hypothesis.
The BOI and the RO's never took this into consideration. Just as they did not consider the Burke evidence. The HOL did so and saw the "facts" for what they were. Mere speculation.
Do you think the HOL were correct to dismiss the simulations?
Without these, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Radar fix, twenty minute black hole, hole in ground. End.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn. Your 5435. Several expeieced aircrew who share your view have joined the discussion in the past, but eventually seem to have given up. They probably did so because there were so many off-beat theories being bandied about that they realised they were in the wrong company. Those theories included;
1.The crew were seduced into the hillside by a false IRA beacon.
2. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a fly or flies in the cockpit.
3. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a wasp or wasps in the cockpit
4.There was a secret piece of US equipment on board, which caused a malfunction (and which explained the alleged presence of US SEALS as the first people to reach the scene.)
5. All the aircraft controls jammed, so that the crew did not fly the aircraft into the granite, the aircraft flew the crew into it, while the crew sat helplessly and watched it happen.
6. Both pilots simultaneously suffered spatial disorientation.
7. It may (or may not ) have been a case of government sponsored murder
To recall the others gives me a headache, but I think you get the picture.
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts that without any doubt whatever (as we say) the crew should have turned away from that cloud-covered hill; and without any doubt whatever, they failed to do so. The most plausible explanation for their failure to turn away is that they misidentified the Fog station compound on the clifftop, thinking it was the Lighthouse compound. This put them about 500 yds to the right of their intended track, which meant (have a look at the map) that the hill in fron of them was around 300-400 ft higher than they expected, and they could not avoid it in the very limited vi=sibility.
Such a failure to act as any reasonable person, given the same corcumstances would do, in this case turning away, is the definition of negligence.
This wil attract a lot of flak, but no convincing counter arguments.
Regards. JP
1.The crew were seduced into the hillside by a false IRA beacon.
2. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a fly or flies in the cockpit.
3. Both pilots were simultaneously distracted by a wasp or wasps in the cockpit
4.There was a secret piece of US equipment on board, which caused a malfunction (and which explained the alleged presence of US SEALS as the first people to reach the scene.)
5. All the aircraft controls jammed, so that the crew did not fly the aircraft into the granite, the aircraft flew the crew into it, while the crew sat helplessly and watched it happen.
6. Both pilots simultaneously suffered spatial disorientation.
7. It may (or may not ) have been a case of government sponsored murder
To recall the others gives me a headache, but I think you get the picture.
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts that without any doubt whatever (as we say) the crew should have turned away from that cloud-covered hill; and without any doubt whatever, they failed to do so. The most plausible explanation for their failure to turn away is that they misidentified the Fog station compound on the clifftop, thinking it was the Lighthouse compound. This put them about 500 yds to the right of their intended track, which meant (have a look at the map) that the hill in fron of them was around 300-400 ft higher than they expected, and they could not avoid it in the very limited vi=sibility.
Such a failure to act as any reasonable person, given the same corcumstances would do, in this case turning away, is the definition of negligence.
This wil attract a lot of flak, but no convincing counter arguments.
Regards. JP
Last edited by John Purdey; 24th Mar 2010 at 09:41. Reason: spelling!
Walter, if this is a deluge I know not, but it is a response to your post. My point about the ship TACAN v handheld gizmo was not that the latter may not have functioned correctly, for it might well have done, but that the former is installed and calibrated on the ship to be used if necessary to make an approved approach to the ship in IMC conditions, whereas the latter could not have been with respect to the Mull LZ. It is for that reason that your:
is just plain wrong. Am I alone in this? It cannot be a serious contention that you can stand by a hillside with such a device and expect a pax loaded Chinook to rely on you to be in the right place in IMC and then to make an approach. Such action by the pilot would amount to Gross Negligence, to coin a well known phrase, surely? Or am I so out of touch that I should shuffle off in my slippers as has been previously suggested? Sorry, your quote has slipped me into bold, not intended!
They would not have been at fault if they were misled as to their closing range by a third party on the ground using this equipment.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who, in my opinion, has been poorly treated by a BoI can I ask, with the greatest respect to those that perished and their families and loved ones, yet again what is the purpose of this thread.
E86
E86
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagle 86
You are so very right - I stated in a recent post
John Purdey
So true - watch out for the "incoming" from those who cannot see the blindingly obvious.......................
You are so very right - I stated in a recent post
I am not sure this thread has any life left in it - the going around in circles has been going on for too long.
So true - watch out for the "incoming" from those who cannot see the blindingly obvious.......................
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've admitted yourself, many times, that you aren't 100% certain, and that is the whole point.
I agree that whyever they were that close, then it was probably pilot error that led to the crash, but I can't be sure, and unless those who made the judgement knew something that wasn't divulged at the original BOI or subsequently, neither could they.
Chugalug2, you're right - if they relied on something to guide them that close to something they couldn't see, they were negligent, but surely the BOI and all subsequent reviews would be undermined by not knowing they were intending to go there in the first place?
TN
JP:
Well no quibble from this folk, JP, for I fully endorse your quote! Catch him someone, I think he's fainted! As to your list of "off beat theories:
1,3 and 6 all stem from variations of Walter's scenario and, before he has a go at me, probably misrepresent it to boot.
2 and 5 I suspect were offered as examples of how an aircraft under control could finish up in a CFIT.
Which leaves 4. Again over egged as no-one to my knowledge has said that all the controls jammed (though it was a feature of the control pallet that they could have done). It is also in poor taste to say that if that were true that the pilots would merely have sat there helplessly. I suggest that they would have fought with the condition to the very end, whether the jam was in 1,2 or 3 axis.
Some folk will try anything to avoid the facts that without any doubt whatever (as we say) the crew should have turned away from that cloud-covered hill; and without any doubt whatever, they failed to do so.
1,3 and 6 all stem from variations of Walter's scenario and, before he has a go at me, probably misrepresent it to boot.
2 and 5 I suspect were offered as examples of how an aircraft under control could finish up in a CFIT.
Which leaves 4. Again over egged as no-one to my knowledge has said that all the controls jammed (though it was a feature of the control pallet that they could have done). It is also in poor taste to say that if that were true that the pilots would merely have sat there helplessly. I suggest that they would have fought with the condition to the very end, whether the jam was in 1,2 or 3 axis.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugaz
I fainted as well!
You left out this bit of JP's post.
JP's spelling is suffering as he recovers from the shock.
I fainted as well!
You left out this bit of JP's post.
Such a failure to act as any reasonable person, given the same corcumstances would do, is the definition of negligence.
I'm sorry, bast0n, I hope you are fully recovered now! As to JP's post I can only quote the bits with which I am in agreement with, I'm afraid.
Thor Nogson, sorry I forgot to respond to your point re intentions to go to the LZ. Point taken but it's all getting a little esoteric to suggest that the BoI didn't know or didn't want to know about a planned overflight/landing at the Mull DZ when there is no evidence of such intention, other than the circumstantial evidence that Walter proposes to us, let alone how that would affect its finding. There is already enough evidence that other issues surrounding the RTS, the airworthiness and the experiences of aircrew (in particular that of the Odiham UTP) that the BoI didn't know or didn't want to know that makes the finding untenable. But that is in the real world of course, and not in the Kafkaesque one of the MOD which no doubt will soon threaten to "Thcream and thcream 'till it's thick" unless we all go away!
Thor Nogson, sorry I forgot to respond to your point re intentions to go to the LZ. Point taken but it's all getting a little esoteric to suggest that the BoI didn't know or didn't want to know about a planned overflight/landing at the Mull DZ when there is no evidence of such intention, other than the circumstantial evidence that Walter proposes to us, let alone how that would affect its finding. There is already enough evidence that other issues surrounding the RTS, the airworthiness and the experiences of aircrew (in particular that of the Odiham UTP) that the BoI didn't know or didn't want to know that makes the finding untenable. But that is in the real world of course, and not in the Kafkaesque one of the MOD which no doubt will soon threaten to "Thcream and thcream 'till it's thick" unless we all go away!
