Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being one who flies that way quite often, I would always plan on coasting out near Cushendall and looking for landfall near the Mull. My logic is that landfall at the Mull (perversely) gives me more options if things aren't looking too good. Indeed, I'm planning to fly almost that exact route this afternoon.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
In my 14 years on 32 Sqn I never once had a decision such as delaying, cancelling or diverting questioned by "Higher Authority". I always knew that I would receive full backing for such decisions. The Captain of the fatal flight was the Detatchment Commander and "Authority in Theatre" in respect of Chinook Operations.
In my 14 years on 32 Sqn I never once had a decision such as delaying, cancelling or diverting questioned by "Higher Authority". I always knew that I would receive full backing for such decisions. The Captain of the fatal flight was the Detatchment Commander and "Authority in Theatre" in respect of Chinook Operations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect Cazatou, you will have been selected for a Captainship on 32 Sqn from a very small pool of candidates. The role of 32 Sqn (The Royal Squadron) being what it is.
Surely then, a Detachment Commander and "Authority in Theatre" would have been selected from, perhaps, an even smaller pool.
I'm thinking that the AT world has a larger 'pool' to select from than the SH (SF) world.
Regards.
Surely then, a Detachment Commander and "Authority in Theatre" would have been selected from, perhaps, an even smaller pool.
I'm thinking that the AT world has a larger 'pool' to select from than the SH (SF) world.
Regards.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz - different Air Force, old chap, different Air Force. I can see it now:
Scene: Ops Desk Aldergrove
Boss:"Boac - I'd like you to take this 4-ship to Inverness today. You'll be leading the Nato demo tomorrow on Tain as you know. Here's the route - Sqn nav has planned it for you. Weather's basically OK, should be 5ks below an overcast, but with a bit of on-shore cloud on the Mull. Glen should be wide open and Inverness/Lossie are White at worst"
Young Boac -" Sorry Sir, I can't do that.- Jolly dangerous with cloud on the Mull"
" Sir - are you OK? You've turned purple and are choking"
"What was that, Sir? You want me to be O i/c the Sqn fish tank and to be Mess Secretary for a couple of years too?"
"No Sir - I don't do that - my mother told me I would go blind"
"Swap the lead, Sir? I'm number 4 now? Oh dear! I think I'm not fit to fly, actually, Sir - blocked ears"
Different Air Force. Dickie D would have explained it to you had you known him. He knew what the operational Air Force was about..
Scene: Ops Desk Aldergrove
Boss:"Boac - I'd like you to take this 4-ship to Inverness today. You'll be leading the Nato demo tomorrow on Tain as you know. Here's the route - Sqn nav has planned it for you. Weather's basically OK, should be 5ks below an overcast, but with a bit of on-shore cloud on the Mull. Glen should be wide open and Inverness/Lossie are White at worst"
Young Boac -" Sorry Sir, I can't do that.- Jolly dangerous with cloud on the Mull"
" Sir - are you OK? You've turned purple and are choking"
"What was that, Sir? You want me to be O i/c the Sqn fish tank and to be Mess Secretary for a couple of years too?"
"No Sir - I don't do that - my mother told me I would go blind"
"Swap the lead, Sir? I'm number 4 now? Oh dear! I think I'm not fit to fly, actually, Sir - blocked ears"
Different Air Force. Dickie D would have explained it to you had you known him. He knew what the operational Air Force was about..
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WaterXing
From the headland (roughly midway between Carnlough and Cushendall) where they left the shore after passing over Carnlough to the Mull is 15.6 Nmiles;
from the point the 028 track (H-B) leaves Rathlin Island to Islay is 16.5 NMiles.
Bertie Thruster, is this “quite a big difference”?
BOAC, you wrote <<The Antrims would not, I think, be a significant problem and the option to route around is there if they are.>>; as they went through the middle of such ground, routing around would not have been a minor diversion – in fact, to avoid them and the populated areas, route H-B is obvious – as was planned for – no high ground or WX probs on that route.
Did anyone prepared to post on this thread actually see the photocopy of the flight plan they are supposed to have left?
From the headland (roughly midway between Carnlough and Cushendall) where they left the shore after passing over Carnlough to the Mull is 15.6 Nmiles;
from the point the 028 track (H-B) leaves Rathlin Island to Islay is 16.5 NMiles.
Bertie Thruster, is this “quite a big difference”?
BOAC, you wrote <<The Antrims would not, I think, be a significant problem and the option to route around is there if they are.>>; as they went through the middle of such ground, routing around would not have been a minor diversion – in fact, to avoid them and the populated areas, route H-B is obvious – as was planned for – no high ground or WX probs on that route.
Did anyone prepared to post on this thread actually see the photocopy of the flight plan they are supposed to have left?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
Your point:
Sorry Caz, but I have to disagree completely.
Firstly, the pax are irrelevant - no-one wants to crash and die whether they have pax on board or not and, secondly, flying towards that cloud-covered headland is fine if you intend to turn to avoid it.
Have you ever flown in a fast jet down the 'A5 pass' in North Wales? To do that you have to point yourself at 420 kts and 250 ft towards a mountain, then make a 4g turn through about 90 degrees to avoid hitting it. People have been planning, executing and surviving that manoeuvre for donkey's years (a manoeuvre that starts the turn at a similar distance to the 7-degree turn our much-slower Chinook should have started), but no-one suggests that that is Gross Negligence.
Your point:
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.
Firstly, the pax are irrelevant - no-one wants to crash and die whether they have pax on board or not and, secondly, flying towards that cloud-covered headland is fine if you intend to turn to avoid it.
Have you ever flown in a fast jet down the 'A5 pass' in North Wales? To do that you have to point yourself at 420 kts and 250 ft towards a mountain, then make a 4g turn through about 90 degrees to avoid hitting it. People have been planning, executing and surviving that manoeuvre for donkey's years (a manoeuvre that starts the turn at a similar distance to the 7-degree turn our much-slower Chinook should have started), but no-one suggests that that is Gross Negligence.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Meadowbank.
Besides my (relatively few) low level hours on helicopters. I have over 2000 hrs LL on C130 and 1000 on Canberras, plus a few hundred more on a variety of types including Tornado, Jaguar and Hawk.
When flying 250 MSD in the valleys of Scotland, Wales, South Germany and a few other places, for the majority of the time I had mountains left, right and in front. Nearly always above. My speed was always considerably above 140 kts.
Does this mean I was always "grossly negligent."
Of course it does not.
What should I and my pilot have done?
Climbed early "just in case" we had a control restriction or suffered from a visual illusion or some other emergency?
Besides my (relatively few) low level hours on helicopters. I have over 2000 hrs LL on C130 and 1000 on Canberras, plus a few hundred more on a variety of types including Tornado, Jaguar and Hawk.
When flying 250 MSD in the valleys of Scotland, Wales, South Germany and a few other places, for the majority of the time I had mountains left, right and in front. Nearly always above. My speed was always considerably above 140 kts.
Does this mean I was always "grossly negligent."
Of course it does not.
What should I and my pilot have done?
Climbed early "just in case" we had a control restriction or suffered from a visual illusion or some other emergency?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook upgrade funding in place for all 48 helicopters
Funding has been approved to upgrade the UK Royal Air Force's (RAF's) entire fleet of 48 Chinook HC.2/2A/3 medium-lift transport helicopters under the 'Project Julius' programme.
Previously, funding was only secured for the first eight aircraft. This upgrade will now bring the entire RAF Chinook fleet up to a 'glass cockpit' standard, incorporating a nose-mounted forward looking infrared (FLIR) system. The first two aircraft should be available towards the end of 2011 with an initial operational capability (IOC) shortly after. The 48 aircraft are due to have been upgraded by 2016, giving the RAF a fleet of identically configured aircraft for the first time.
The Chinook HC.2s are equipped with various operational enhancements due to urgent operational requirements (UORs). In 2003 eight aircraft were additionally updated with a night enhancement package (NEP), while some were retrofitted with Honeywell T55-714 engines.Chinook upgrade funding in place for all 48 helicopters
Previously, funding was only secured for the first eight aircraft. This upgrade will now bring the entire RAF Chinook fleet up to a 'glass cockpit' standard, incorporating a nose-mounted forward looking infrared (FLIR) system. The first two aircraft should be available towards the end of 2011 with an initial operational capability (IOC) shortly after. The 48 aircraft are due to have been upgraded by 2016, giving the RAF a fleet of identically configured aircraft for the first time.
The Chinook HC.2s are equipped with various operational enhancements due to urgent operational requirements (UORs). In 2003 eight aircraft were additionally updated with a night enhancement package (NEP), while some were retrofitted with Honeywell T55-714 engines.Chinook upgrade funding in place for all 48 helicopters
BBF, not being flippant but, in all probability, so were these pilots VMC until just prior to the crash, ie before waypoint change. Certainly though they were IMC soon after that until they did crash. So your final thought of "Classic CFIT" deserves inspection. If it was then case closed, but the evidence offered to support that (Boeing's Model) has been disproved and the crash site evidence strongly suggests that the aircraft was not in control immediately prior to the crash. So not so much Classic as Confused and thus not so much CFIT as UFIT?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
<<So your final thought of "Classic CFIT" deserves inspection. If it was then case closed, but the evidence offered to support that (Boeing's Model) has been disproved ...>>
You don't need Boeing's simulation – just analyse the available data; if you are referring to the single aspect of the cruise climb, which was used as I recall by the AVM's or some such to conclude that they had selected an inapproprite rate of climb, I think you will find that this was based upon just the two heights, altitude update and impact – I have addressed this recently, pointing out that, with the limits of accuracy of the encoding altimeter, they may not have been doing much climbing at all until the last seconds – and yes, this one damning conclusion that they had selected the wrong rate of climb is wrong. But what else was it you think in the way of “evidence” that depended upon the Boeing simulation to support the CFIT?
<< … the crash site evidence strongly suggests that the aircraft was not in control immediately prior to the crash.>> No it does not.
<<So your final thought of "Classic CFIT" deserves inspection. If it was then case closed, but the evidence offered to support that (Boeing's Model) has been disproved ...>>
You don't need Boeing's simulation – just analyse the available data; if you are referring to the single aspect of the cruise climb, which was used as I recall by the AVM's or some such to conclude that they had selected an inapproprite rate of climb, I think you will find that this was based upon just the two heights, altitude update and impact – I have addressed this recently, pointing out that, with the limits of accuracy of the encoding altimeter, they may not have been doing much climbing at all until the last seconds – and yes, this one damning conclusion that they had selected the wrong rate of climb is wrong. But what else was it you think in the way of “evidence” that depended upon the Boeing simulation to support the CFIT?
<< … the crash site evidence strongly suggests that the aircraft was not in control immediately prior to the crash.>> No it does not.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the route (Cushendall - Mull onwards) yesterday like many have done before at a TAS of pretty much 140kts. I wholeheartedly agree with Bertie T; regardless of the semantics, that route feels far more logical that the alternative, Northerly route offered by Walter.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon me for posting, but this thread is rotating so fast it's making me dizzy - I can't be the only one that thinks we're all about to disappear up our own jetpipes with the plethora of 'theories' being postulated. Personally I doubt that anymore facts will arise after all these years; and the Firm is unlikely to backpedal despite the weight of popular opinion - although the findings about a more recent incident may pose a problem of consistency where negligence is alleged/'proven'?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmmm, you are correct - there is nothing new. The argument should revolve around the RAF's failure to demonstrate absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Everything else is is postulation, exactly the same type of postulation that the RAF made.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cows
<< that route feels far more logical that the alternative, Northerly route offered by Walter.>>
err, like what was planned for by the other pilots and as loaded in the STANS and as set up to go to at waypoint change, presumably after the business at the Mull..
Anyway, you do not want to focus on the data available - so, anyone want to come forward who saw the actual photocopy of the flight plan left behind? After all these years, such a big secret? Keep your heads in the sand if you can't face up to it, eh?
<< that route feels far more logical that the alternative, Northerly route offered by Walter.>>
err, like what was planned for by the other pilots and as loaded in the STANS and as set up to go to at waypoint change, presumably after the business at the Mull..
Anyway, you do not want to focus on the data available - so, anyone want to come forward who saw the actual photocopy of the flight plan left behind? After all these years, such a big secret? Keep your heads in the sand if you can't face up to it, eh?
Walter Kennedy:
All the control pallet springs detached and the pedals 70 degrees over, hardly suggests being in control, Walter. I know the DS (or rather the WD) solution is the first was impact damage and the second the famous "escape manoeuvre" but evidently that relied on the Boeing Model which in turn relied on a 1,000ft/min ROC which even allowing for manufacturers' rose tinted estimates of their product's capabilities was way off the mark. Instead of reverse engineering the accident back to prove the pilots responsible the BoI might have done better to have the AAIB seriously consider the clues in the wreckage. But then that might have lead back to the lack of Airworthiness condition known of at RTS. So which to go for? Tricky....
<< … the crash site evidence strongly suggests that the aircraft was not in control immediately prior to the crash.>> No it does not.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let's put this "business at the Mull" argument to bed shall we? I will agree that maybe the crew wanted to make an unplanned landing at your uber-secret LZ; like many other things, impossible to prove.
Take the planned landing/approach scenario. Why on earth would the passengers have had any interest in a demonstration of such a capability? They were on their way to a conference and had only one thing on their mind; a demonstration of an allegedly secret SH capability that those particular people would have had absolutely no interest in is nonsense. Secondly, why would the det unilaterally add such a landing to the task? All they would have wanted to do was get their passengers to destination and then go home (or stay over). There was a tenuous argument about crew-duty time; again fantasy (not saying that was your argument).
The very thought of that simple bus run task encompassing another, 'black' procedure is just too off the wall.
Head in the sand? I think not. More like a bit of myopia on your behalf.
PS. I genuinely don't have any knowledge of any FPL left behind. If I had filed one the route would have read DCT, nothing more.
Take the planned landing/approach scenario. Why on earth would the passengers have had any interest in a demonstration of such a capability? They were on their way to a conference and had only one thing on their mind; a demonstration of an allegedly secret SH capability that those particular people would have had absolutely no interest in is nonsense. Secondly, why would the det unilaterally add such a landing to the task? All they would have wanted to do was get their passengers to destination and then go home (or stay over). There was a tenuous argument about crew-duty time; again fantasy (not saying that was your argument).
The very thought of that simple bus run task encompassing another, 'black' procedure is just too off the wall.
Head in the sand? I think not. More like a bit of myopia on your behalf.
PS. I genuinely don't have any knowledge of any FPL left behind. If I had filed one the route would have read DCT, nothing more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Campers!
For goodness sakes!
Pilots mess up from time to time! (even me).
Be they PPL, ATPL, Military Special Forces or some other type.
All are trained to do what they do. ALL have demonstrated that they can do what they were trained to do. And yet accidents happen, both to the PPL the ATPL and the military, even military SF pilot.
Now, I'll agree that these guys "guilt" can not be proved. At least in a court of law.
In the eyes of a fellow pilot, however, they surely cocked it up big time- as I may do someday myself- God forbid!
If I ever do, somehow I doubt that, even if the circumstances are similar to the Chinook crash, anyone will give a flying F&ck!
And why should they?
They'd say I was a c*nt for pressing on and having the classic VMC into IMC followed by cumulo-granitas accident
Personally, IF I'd been flying that Chinook, I'd have pulled up hard as I went IMC (esp as MAC has no DME) and f&ck the icing. And I think these guys did exactly that.
Are SF pilots different to the rest of us 'mere' pilots?
Can they never f*uck up?
I'll bet, if these guys could speak, they'd have a lot to say.
And they probably would not choose to slag off their own aircraft. (as a lot of folk have done here)
To complain about the indictment of gross incompetance is silly. The fine is already paid.
For goodness sakes!
Pilots mess up from time to time! (even me).
Be they PPL, ATPL, Military Special Forces or some other type.
All are trained to do what they do. ALL have demonstrated that they can do what they were trained to do. And yet accidents happen, both to the PPL the ATPL and the military, even military SF pilot.
Now, I'll agree that these guys "guilt" can not be proved. At least in a court of law.
In the eyes of a fellow pilot, however, they surely cocked it up big time- as I may do someday myself- God forbid!
If I ever do, somehow I doubt that, even if the circumstances are similar to the Chinook crash, anyone will give a flying F&ck!
And why should they?
They'd say I was a c*nt for pressing on and having the classic VMC into IMC followed by cumulo-granitas accident
Personally, IF I'd been flying that Chinook, I'd have pulled up hard as I went IMC (esp as MAC has no DME) and f&ck the icing. And I think these guys did exactly that.
Are SF pilots different to the rest of us 'mere' pilots?
Can they never f*uck up?
I'll bet, if these guys could speak, they'd have a lot to say.
And they probably would not choose to slag off their own aircraft. (as a lot of folk have done here)
To complain about the indictment of gross incompetance is silly. The fine is already paid.
Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 7th Aug 2009 at 01:24.