Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
JP,
I'm sure that BEagle can look after himself but you do your credibility no good when you seem to be blind to what he actually wrote:
"I'm still firmly of the opinion that any other verdict would have laid the MoD exposed to accusations of corporate homicide, the financial consequences of which would have been very expensive. So Wratten and Day were determined to find a way, any way of avoiding the truth coming into the public domain." (my bold)
It is perhaps not surprising that you are blind to the possiblity of doubt in your claim that gross negligence occurred before waypoint change.
I'm sure that BEagle can look after himself but you do your credibility no good when you seem to be blind to what he actually wrote:
"I'm still firmly of the opinion that any other verdict would have laid the MoD exposed to accusations of corporate homicide, the financial consequences of which would have been very expensive. So Wratten and Day were determined to find a way, any way of avoiding the truth coming into the public domain." (my bold)
It is perhaps not surprising that you are blind to the possiblity of doubt in your claim that gross negligence occurred before waypoint change.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
Why are you so outraged about the accusation of "corporate homicide" against the MOD. They have been doing it for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Forget aircraft for the moment. How about Snatch Landrovers and the case of Sgt Steven Roberts, to name but two cases.
This is not just my opinion. Try reading what the Oxford Coroner has to say.
Of course he is again an ignorant civilian with no understanding of military matters.
Why are you so outraged about the accusation of "corporate homicide" against the MOD. They have been doing it for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Forget aircraft for the moment. How about Snatch Landrovers and the case of Sgt Steven Roberts, to name but two cases.
This is not just my opinion. Try reading what the Oxford Coroner has to say.
Of course he is again an ignorant civilian with no understanding of military matters.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
A bit bilious this morning?
What Major Equipment is procured for the Miltary is decided at Ministerial level taking into account many factors - of which suitability is only one. A sceptic might conclude that whether jobs could be created in a marginal Constituency was a higher priority.
Prior to WW2 the RAF held a competition for a new Light Bomber. The winning design was the Fairey Battle - Maximum speed 241 mph at 13,000 ft. The loser was the Hawker Henley which was adopted as a Target Tug with a de-rated engine - its Maximum speed (towing an Air to Air Drogue) was 272 mph at 17,000 ft!!
On 14 May 1940 Nos 12, 103,105,150 and 218 Sqns equipped with Battles attacked German Pontoon Bridges at Sedan. 40 aircraft out of a force of 71 were lost.
Should we hold an Inquiry?
A bit bilious this morning?
What Major Equipment is procured for the Miltary is decided at Ministerial level taking into account many factors - of which suitability is only one. A sceptic might conclude that whether jobs could be created in a marginal Constituency was a higher priority.
Prior to WW2 the RAF held a competition for a new Light Bomber. The winning design was the Fairey Battle - Maximum speed 241 mph at 13,000 ft. The loser was the Hawker Henley which was adopted as a Target Tug with a de-rated engine - its Maximum speed (towing an Air to Air Drogue) was 272 mph at 17,000 ft!!
On 14 May 1940 Nos 12, 103,105,150 and 218 Sqns equipped with Battles attacked German Pontoon Bridges at Sedan. 40 aircraft out of a force of 71 were lost.
Should we hold an Inquiry?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
A bit bilious this morning?
What Major Equipment is procured for the Miltary is decided at Ministerial level taking into account many factors - of which suitability is only one. A sceptic might conclude that whether jobs could be created in a marginal Constituency was a higher priority.
Prior to WW2 the RAF held a competition for a new Light Bomber. The winning design was the Fairey Battle - Maximum speed 241 mph at 13,000 ft. The loser was the Hawker Henley which was adopted as a Target Tug with a de-rated engine - its Maximum speed (towing an Air to Air Drogue) was 272 mph at 17,000 ft!!
On 14 May 1940 Nos 12, 103,105,150 and 218 Sqns equipped with Battles attacked German Pontoon Bridges at Sedan. 40 aircraft out of a force of 71 were lost.
Should we hold an Inquiry?
A bit bilious this morning?
What Major Equipment is procured for the Miltary is decided at Ministerial level taking into account many factors - of which suitability is only one. A sceptic might conclude that whether jobs could be created in a marginal Constituency was a higher priority.
Prior to WW2 the RAF held a competition for a new Light Bomber. The winning design was the Fairey Battle - Maximum speed 241 mph at 13,000 ft. The loser was the Hawker Henley which was adopted as a Target Tug with a de-rated engine - its Maximum speed (towing an Air to Air Drogue) was 272 mph at 17,000 ft!!
On 14 May 1940 Nos 12, 103,105,150 and 218 Sqns equipped with Battles attacked German Pontoon Bridges at Sedan. 40 aircraft out of a force of 71 were lost.
Should we hold an Inquiry?
I think he further goes on to say that those of us who think this concept is flawed really should keep our own council as it's in no ones interest to complain about it.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Caz,
I am feeling well this morning. I think we can shelve the Fairey Battle debate along with that for the Somme and Waterloo.
The subjects I raised are still very much, I believe in the news.
The army are about to receive vehicles rejected by the US military. OK, they may have been improved since the trial, but why are we not simply buying the vehicles accepted by the US army? They passed the "tests" in the first place.
Probably should be on a different forum, but you can't seem to see an example of MOD incompetence even when it stands up and bites you.
You were very scathing about my lack of helicopter experience. Just what experience do you have?
I was working with the army when the SA80 came into service. All the soldiers I spoke to said it was a great concept but too many things had been attempted and it was far too complex and prone to weather and dirt jamming.
To a man, they would all have preferred to be issued with the same AK47 as the other side.
I am feeling well this morning. I think we can shelve the Fairey Battle debate along with that for the Somme and Waterloo.
The subjects I raised are still very much, I believe in the news.
The army are about to receive vehicles rejected by the US military. OK, they may have been improved since the trial, but why are we not simply buying the vehicles accepted by the US army? They passed the "tests" in the first place.
Probably should be on a different forum, but you can't seem to see an example of MOD incompetence even when it stands up and bites you.
You were very scathing about my lack of helicopter experience. Just what experience do you have?
I was working with the army when the SA80 came into service. All the soldiers I spoke to said it was a great concept but too many things had been attempted and it was far too complex and prone to weather and dirt jamming.
To a man, they would all have preferred to be issued with the same AK47 as the other side.
Caz:
The courage of those brave men who were sacrificed in such a forlorn and unequal struggle, and knew it, is legend caz, and you do well to remind us of it. But at least those who lost their lives did so at the hands of the enemy. No such presence existed (Walter's "spooks" not withstanding) in the tragedy that is the subject of this thread, nor for that matter with the Nimrod tragedy, nor for that matter the 2 Sea Kings' collision. The sole enemy presence in the case of the Hercules was in all probability a single round that penetrated an unprotected fuel tank. Those three cases had one thing in common, which AFAIK the Battles did not share, that is a lack of airworthiness. To my mind that makes those 60 deaths even more of a tragedy as it concerned not the exigencies of war but the Gross Negligence of senior commanders and was completely avoidable.
On 14 May 1940 Nos 12, 103,105,150 and 218 Sqns equipped with Battles attacked German Pontoon Bridges at Sedan. 40 aircraft out of a force of 71 were lost.
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
While we're on the subject, It's worth mentioning the RAF had similar issues with the Puma prior to it's introduction. The issue surfaced in the media about twenty years ago but to my knowledge, no modifications were carried out as a result of the adverse publicity.
It lacked crashworthy seats, had only one fire bottle between two engines and similar issues to the "Herk" with its fuel tanks. It also lacked anticipators on the engines, causing a situation where the engines would not give sufficient repsonse just when it was most needed. The latter issue was a likely contributing factor in an accident a couple of years ago in Iraq, resulting in a fatal accident.
It lacked crashworthy seats, had only one fire bottle between two engines and similar issues to the "Herk" with its fuel tanks. It also lacked anticipators on the engines, causing a situation where the engines would not give sufficient repsonse just when it was most needed. The latter issue was a likely contributing factor in an accident a couple of years ago in Iraq, resulting in a fatal accident.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
Re the Hercules.
A very apposite analogy.
What was the Hercules doing at that height - on that route - with those passengers?
With the Chinook we know why it had the passengers; the question becomes:
"What was the Chinook doing at that height - at that speed - on that route - in that weather?"
Re the Hercules.
A very apposite analogy.
What was the Hercules doing at that height - on that route - with those passengers?
With the Chinook we know why it had the passengers; the question becomes:
"What was the Chinook doing at that height - at that speed - on that route - in that weather?"
caz, this is old well tilled soil that I have no intention of re cultivating with you, other than to point out that whatever the Hercules was doing there it was doing with unprotected fuel tanks! WW2 Bombers by comparison were equipped with Nitrogen purged self sealing tanks at least (not sure if that was the state of the art and thus available for the Battles at the very start, someone?). The Airworthiness deficiencies of the Chinook were even more dire to the extent that whatever it was doing there it was doing out of control before it crashed IMHO. The standard of Airworthiness, as with all facets of Aviation, is one of continual development and improvement except in the case of the MOD where the reverse would seem to apply!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 30th Jul 2009 at 15:07.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
Unlike you I was actually still on C130's at the start of the Afghanistan war. I was operating crew on over 20 sorties into Kabul before I left in 2002.
Like you, I am puzzled as to why the crew chose to operate at low level.
We made all our approaches at night, using the Khe Sanh 12 degree glideslope with IRCM on and with armour plate on the cockpit floor and behind the pilots seat. On T/O we circled inside the defensive perimeter until F180 or above.
We all knew about fire suppressant foam and knew that it had been fitted to US and Australian Hercs for years, and wished we had it.
Until the late 80's we operated without any defences whatsoever. The first improvement (the basic SA7 IRCM) came as a result of a demand from an Army 4 Star that did not want to risk his troops going into NI. HQSTC had shown no interest until his demands had been made. The cockpit armour followed soon afterwards.
Unlike you, because I do not know why the crew chose to operate at low level, I choose not to pass judgement.
I try to separate my opinion from hard fact.
Have you ever operated in a Military Helicopter, Chinook or anything else for that matter?
Unlike you I was actually still on C130's at the start of the Afghanistan war. I was operating crew on over 20 sorties into Kabul before I left in 2002.
Like you, I am puzzled as to why the crew chose to operate at low level.
We made all our approaches at night, using the Khe Sanh 12 degree glideslope with IRCM on and with armour plate on the cockpit floor and behind the pilots seat. On T/O we circled inside the defensive perimeter until F180 or above.
We all knew about fire suppressant foam and knew that it had been fitted to US and Australian Hercs for years, and wished we had it.
Until the late 80's we operated without any defences whatsoever. The first improvement (the basic SA7 IRCM) came as a result of a demand from an Army 4 Star that did not want to risk his troops going into NI. HQSTC had shown no interest until his demands had been made. The cockpit armour followed soon afterwards.
Unlike you, because I do not know why the crew chose to operate at low level, I choose not to pass judgement.
I try to separate my opinion from hard fact.
Have you ever operated in a Military Helicopter, Chinook or anything else for that matter?
Last edited by dalek; 31st Jul 2009 at 08:01.
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
After spending an hour being questioned under oath by one of the Oxford Coroners, I can assure you that they are not fans of the MOD. If inquests are published, I suggest you read up on any of the deaths on operations. They often slate the MOD on equipment issues. The Puma anticipators have recieved many many statements of disbelief from coroners. Recent events, including by me, on this thread have developed from interpretation of statements made. Often the person writing the words knew what they WANTED to say, but it came out wrong. Others then leap on them and go for the jugular vein. This doesn't really help anyones case, for or against. The fact of the matter is that there are 2 camps, neither want to change their mind, one side have a different interpretation of PROOF from the other.Who is right?
Can we try to stop the insults please?? Look at how your 'opposites' are thinking. Will they change their mind in a gazillion years?? Everyone who posts could be correct, because nobody will EVER know what went on that day. All posts should begin 'IN MY OPINION', because thats all it is........
'My' side will say that this itself proves the case, the 'other' side have their own reasons, valid to them.
The MOD do make big mistakes and they have been known to cover up, the government always cover up first and ask questions later. Sometimes they get it right. In this case??????????
Anyway, a long winded post, just to try to stop the assassination by grammar
Can we try to stop the insults please?? Look at how your 'opposites' are thinking. Will they change their mind in a gazillion years?? Everyone who posts could be correct, because nobody will EVER know what went on that day. All posts should begin 'IN MY OPINION', because thats all it is........
'My' side will say that this itself proves the case, the 'other' side have their own reasons, valid to them.
The MOD do make big mistakes and they have been known to cover up, the government always cover up first and ask questions later. Sometimes they get it right. In this case??????????
Anyway, a long winded post, just to try to stop the assassination by grammar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
I never operated the Hercules although I did have a couple of "rides" in the Sim before a tour at Boscombe.
The only 4 engined RAF aircraft I have operated is the BAe 146.
My point of view is quite simple:-
1. To fly at low level directly towards high ground is not necessarily the best option.
2. To fly at high speed at low level directly towards high ground whilst carrying Pax is foolish.
3. To fly at high speed at low level directly towards high ground shrouded in mist and low cloud whilst carrying Pax is crass stupidity which can only result in a finding of Gross Negligence irrespective of whether such action results in an accident or not.
I trust I make myself clear.
I never operated the Hercules although I did have a couple of "rides" in the Sim before a tour at Boscombe.
The only 4 engined RAF aircraft I have operated is the BAe 146.
My point of view is quite simple:-
1. To fly at low level directly towards high ground is not necessarily the best option.
2. To fly at high speed at low level directly towards high ground whilst carrying Pax is foolish.
3. To fly at high speed at low level directly towards high ground shrouded in mist and low cloud whilst carrying Pax is crass stupidity which can only result in a finding of Gross Negligence irrespective of whether such action results in an accident or not.
I trust I make myself clear.
Your point of view is definitely "quite simple".
Given the same conditions and limitations I would have planned the same route.
Could you make clear what route would you have chosen?
Given the same conditions and limitations I would have planned the same route.
Could you make clear what route would you have chosen?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too, Bertie. Several of these posters do not have a clue about how the miltary conduct low-level ops, do they? Ops in Bosnia, let alone the cloud and mist shrouded UK would have ground to a halt if they had been flying there. They have obviously never been through a range of cloud covered hills or mountains using the valleys. Nightmare stuff! Gross negligence, no doubt. Don't tell the squadrons.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bertie Thruster & BOAC
<<... Given the same conditions and limitations I would have planned the same route. Could you make clear what route would you have chosen? >>
<<Me too, Bertie. >>
Perhaps you could clarify what route you two mean?
Perhaps you have missed or are ignoring the recent discussion on the routes apparently set up?
<<... Given the same conditions and limitations I would have planned the same route. Could you make clear what route would you have chosen? >>
<<Me too, Bertie. >>
Perhaps you could clarify what route you two mean?
Perhaps you have missed or are ignoring the recent discussion on the routes apparently set up?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reverse order
Short sea crossing, turning left into funnel feature to the Glen, using waypoint feature with 'vertical extent' IAW low level nav training. I'm sure all experienced service pilots with low-level 'time' would do the same. You might even find it was a 'standard' theatre route for transit in that direction.
No
Short sea crossing, turning left into funnel feature to the Glen, using waypoint feature with 'vertical extent' IAW low level nav training. I'm sure all experienced service pilots with low-level 'time' would do the same. You might even find it was a 'standard' theatre route for transit in that direction.
No
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
A “funnel” 20 miles wide at the mouth!
A path over miles of hills (Antrim) that had bad conditions to a headland with (well, as we know) followed by a fumble up an irregular coast with bad weather along and off it.
And you say all experienced service pilots would do the same while there was an alternative over level, low ground in clear conditions followed by a straight handrail along the clear coast of Jura which I am quite sure would be a route of choice in those conditions prevalent for that day for a ferry flight to the Glen.
And indeed the other pilots had planned for this, had they not?
And the captain had his HoSI set up (with the TANS on waypoint B) to return to this track after whatever on the Mull.
And, if you did the chartwork, as I have pointed out before you should realise that there is naff all difference in terms of distance to shore between the paths.
Did you ever do much nav yourself?
A “funnel” 20 miles wide at the mouth!
A path over miles of hills (Antrim) that had bad conditions to a headland with (well, as we know) followed by a fumble up an irregular coast with bad weather along and off it.
And you say all experienced service pilots would do the same while there was an alternative over level, low ground in clear conditions followed by a straight handrail along the clear coast of Jura which I am quite sure would be a route of choice in those conditions prevalent for that day for a ferry flight to the Glen.
And indeed the other pilots had planned for this, had they not?
And the captain had his HoSI set up (with the TANS on waypoint B) to return to this track after whatever on the Mull.
And, if you did the chartwork, as I have pointed out before you should realise that there is naff all difference in terms of distance to shore between the paths.
Did you ever do much nav yourself?
naff all difference in terms of distance to shore between the paths
............ quite a big difference and long enough to consider when you have to take an aircraft you are not entirely happy with, especially with a load of non dunker trained pax.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WK - you would need to ask the 'in theatre' crews what would be the preferred route. I think Bertie has it. The Antrims would not, I think, be a significant problem and the option to route around is there if they are.
A fair bit of 'VFR' around that area, yes.
Would the 'other posters' who decry the way the flight was planned have 'declined the mission' due to the forecast and presence of cloud? A well-received move that would be.
A fair bit of 'VFR' around that area, yes.
Would the 'other posters' who decry the way the flight was planned have 'declined the mission' due to the forecast and presence of cloud? A well-received move that would be.