78 Sqn Chinook Crash (20 years ago)
There is something "Quick" about the Jag?
Nutloose
I know what you’re saying and admire Boeing’s stance. My viewpoint is one of someone who had to explain to other contractors why MoD’s mandated policy of competition didn’t apply to certain contractors. For example, in the late 90s our Chief of Defence Procurement upheld criticism in an annual report when a project manager was castigated for not cancelling a successful project, on the point of completion ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec, and starting all over against with a single tender contract on Thales. There have always been a favoured few.
In the case of Chinook, I imagine Boeing would most certainly point to the serial abuse of the Service Engineered Mod and Special Trials Fit processes that, in the 80s and 90s contributed much to its lack of airworthiness. I also said on the MoK thread that before passing judgement on Boeing I’d want to look at their contracts (or, more accurately, lack of contracts). The FADEC arrangement was ludicrous, breaching every mandated contracting rule in MoD. Not to mention a certain two IPTs in the 90s and 00s handing out Chinook airworthiness delegation to infantry soldiers and graduates who’d never been near an aircraft. Much to the annoyance of the Chinook IPT, who were blameless and toothless. The sheer shambles this creates means it is little wonder upgrade programmes experience delays.
Not only Boeing’s requirements, but MoD’s own! We know the answer. MoD didn’t comply, and staffs were actually under direct orders NOT to comply. We know the names and they have been published. Nothing was done!
I’m less enamoured with the thought of this. I’ve heard this proposal many times from beancounters and, especially, suppliers. There are very few in MoD who know what being a Design Authority entails, especially if they are also the PDSC. But I’ll absolutely guarantee you MoD did not maintain the Build Standard or, by definition, the Safety Case. MoD has never in my time had the experience or knowledge to be DA on a whole aircraft. They have done it on engines, but with varying success, but this was more of a paper appointment – Rolls Royce was still under significant contract to provide the expertise and support. In simple terms, MoD relied on RR but signed documents that normally the contractor would. MoD being DA wouldn’t make upgrades quicker or cheaper; it is circumventing the regulations that does that. In particular, those governing SEMs.
I know what you’re saying and admire Boeing’s stance. My viewpoint is one of someone who had to explain to other contractors why MoD’s mandated policy of competition didn’t apply to certain contractors. For example, in the late 90s our Chief of Defence Procurement upheld criticism in an annual report when a project manager was castigated for not cancelling a successful project, on the point of completion ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec, and starting all over against with a single tender contract on Thales. There have always been a favoured few.
In the case of Chinook, I imagine Boeing would most certainly point to the serial abuse of the Service Engineered Mod and Special Trials Fit processes that, in the 80s and 90s contributed much to its lack of airworthiness. I also said on the MoK thread that before passing judgement on Boeing I’d want to look at their contracts (or, more accurately, lack of contracts). The FADEC arrangement was ludicrous, breaching every mandated contracting rule in MoD. Not to mention a certain two IPTs in the 90s and 00s handing out Chinook airworthiness delegation to infantry soldiers and graduates who’d never been near an aircraft. Much to the annoyance of the Chinook IPT, who were blameless and toothless. The sheer shambles this creates means it is little wonder upgrade programmes experience delays.
One does wonder the legal ramifications if a Chinook crew is killed due to MOD negligence under failing to comply with Airworthiness requirements laid down by the manufacturer.
Incidentally wasn't one of the major advantages of the Jaguar that the design authority had transferred to the MOD, thus allowing upgrades to be carried out both cheaply and quickly?
Last edited by tucumseh; 15th Aug 2013 at 22:00.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Although I do slag the leaf blower off, the thing it had going for it was cheap to operate in respect to the other fleets, was cheap to upgrade towards the end and was not manpower intensive to maintain compared to the other fleets..
Which made it a cost effective and capable platform in its latter years, or maybe I'm wrong..
(That was in response to SASless)
Which made it a cost effective and capable platform in its latter years, or maybe I'm wrong..
(That was in response to SASless)
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Aug 2013 at 22:06.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
graduates who’d never been near an aircraft.
Dame Deirdre Hutton (Chair)
Dame Deirdre Hutton was appointed to the CAA Board as a Non-Executive Board Member in April 2009 and took up the position of Chair of the CAA in August 2009. Dame Deirdre was previously Chair of the Food Standards Agency, Honorary Vice-President of the Institute of Food Science and Technology, Honorary Vice-President of the Trading Standards Institute, and serves as a Non-Executive member of the HM Treasury Board. She has been Vice-Chair of the European Food Safety Authority Management Board, Deputy Chair of the Financial Services Authority, Chair of the National Consumer Council, Chair of the Scottish Consumer Council, and a member of the Better Regulation Task Force. She has also held a number of positions on a variety of bodies dealing with food issues.
Read the letter from the Secretary of State for Transport to Dame Deirdre stating the CAA's priorities
Dame Deirdre Hutton was appointed to the CAA Board as a Non-Executive Board Member in April 2009 and took up the position of Chair of the CAA in August 2009. Dame Deirdre was previously Chair of the Food Standards Agency, Honorary Vice-President of the Institute of Food Science and Technology, Honorary Vice-President of the Trading Standards Institute, and serves as a Non-Executive member of the HM Treasury Board. She has been Vice-Chair of the European Food Safety Authority Management Board, Deputy Chair of the Financial Services Authority, Chair of the National Consumer Council, Chair of the Scottish Consumer Council, and a member of the Better Regulation Task Force. She has also held a number of positions on a variety of bodies dealing with food issues.
Read the letter from the Secretary of State for Transport to Dame Deirdre stating the CAA's priorities
The junk you get published by them is unreal, they did a licence guidance booklet and the two examples listed for a multi piston engine pressurised aircraft group were a turboprop and a biz jet !
And you get surveyors coming out to look at aircraft that have degrees but have never worked or operated one... Nice to see we are in the same boat.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Aug 2013 at 22:18.
Points well made and taken, Nutloose, but AFAIK the CAA has not yet got round to deliberately suborning its own airworthiness regulations. That distinction goes to the MOD, which upholds such malevolent subversion (including the giving of direct orders to that effect to juniors) to this day. The MAA of course has nothing to say about it...
I'm a bit behind with this post but I was in the crew room at Odiham when the first Chinook desynchronised. A shocking bang! A few days later my flight commander brought in the offending bearing that had been fitted the wrong way round allowing the sync shaft to part company with the gearbox. The only indication as to which way to assemble it was a small faint arrow less than 1cm in length etched lightly onto the bearing. It seemed to me that the designer had placed a great deal of faith in his fellow human beings...he'd clearly never heard of Murphy's Law! It set me thinking about what other possible banana skins were hidden in the mighty Wokka.
Notwithstanding some of the technical problems that the aircraft has had, they are greatly outweighed by the sheer strength and power of the machine that have, on many many occasions saved the crew and pax from inept handling by us stick monkeys!
Notwithstanding some of the technical problems that the aircraft has had, they are greatly outweighed by the sheer strength and power of the machine that have, on many many occasions saved the crew and pax from inept handling by us stick monkeys!
Kintyred,
You put your finger unerringly on the nub of things. Many, many, many years ago I visited the AIB black museum in Shell-Mex House. Among the exhibits was a very ancient NRV with a luggage label attached. Our guide explained that it had been fitted to a Vickers Valencia (or some such) and crashed in the desert due fuel starvation.
The resulting inquiry found that this valve had been fitted the wrong way round, for the simple reason that it could be. As a result, all NRVs were made with different diameter inlet/outlet pipes thereafter so that it would not happen again.
Classic Flight Safety parable, which was just as well for we were all on a course for prospective FSO's. When that link was broken between cause, effect and cure we were sent back to the aviation stone age. It seems from the threads on this forum relating to airworthiness affected fatal military air accidents that we are still there.
Anyone got some flint?
You put your finger unerringly on the nub of things. Many, many, many years ago I visited the AIB black museum in Shell-Mex House. Among the exhibits was a very ancient NRV with a luggage label attached. Our guide explained that it had been fitted to a Vickers Valencia (or some such) and crashed in the desert due fuel starvation.
The resulting inquiry found that this valve had been fitted the wrong way round, for the simple reason that it could be. As a result, all NRVs were made with different diameter inlet/outlet pipes thereafter so that it would not happen again.
Classic Flight Safety parable, which was just as well for we were all on a course for prospective FSO's. When that link was broken between cause, effect and cure we were sent back to the aviation stone age. It seems from the threads on this forum relating to airworthiness affected fatal military air accidents that we are still there.
Anyone got some flint?
Good post kintyred and well said chug.
These threads should, at most, have posts such as kintyred's, so that others can learn from these experiences and prevent recurrence; and someone knowledgeable simply pointing out the solution(s). If you're not interested professionally in the solution, fine, no need to store it away or comment. By all means propose different solutions, but don't criticise those who do need to know, and have to sign for it next time. What we have here on pprune and in MoD is people who rubbish the idea that the problem should be fixed at all. You really do have to wonder at their motive.
One solution to that bearing problem is correct implementation of the hitherto mandated Design Review process. On 4.6.98 the MoD Project Director responsible for (inter alia.) Chinook was formally notified that it had become practice to completely waive Design Reviews, make a false declaration that they had been conducted properly and successfully, and had been fully paid off. He did not reply. This was then elevated to his 2 Star and 4 Star, both of whom formally ruled that such fraud was acceptable. This general principle, and its applicability to airworthiness declarations in particular, has been upheld regularly, most recently in July this year by DE&S, in a letter to which the MAA were party to. That is the "Stone Age" that the MAA refuse to address, and which so many here advocate. It is why I post here.
These threads should, at most, have posts such as kintyred's, so that others can learn from these experiences and prevent recurrence; and someone knowledgeable simply pointing out the solution(s). If you're not interested professionally in the solution, fine, no need to store it away or comment. By all means propose different solutions, but don't criticise those who do need to know, and have to sign for it next time. What we have here on pprune and in MoD is people who rubbish the idea that the problem should be fixed at all. You really do have to wonder at their motive.
One solution to that bearing problem is correct implementation of the hitherto mandated Design Review process. On 4.6.98 the MoD Project Director responsible for (inter alia.) Chinook was formally notified that it had become practice to completely waive Design Reviews, make a false declaration that they had been conducted properly and successfully, and had been fully paid off. He did not reply. This was then elevated to his 2 Star and 4 Star, both of whom formally ruled that such fraud was acceptable. This general principle, and its applicability to airworthiness declarations in particular, has been upheld regularly, most recently in July this year by DE&S, in a letter to which the MAA were party to. That is the "Stone Age" that the MAA refuse to address, and which so many here advocate. It is why I post here.
It seems that the Wg Cdr Spry thread is not to be sullied with posts such as are on this thread, tuc. You know, ones about Flight Safety. Instead we should stay away, unless we have some helpful hints about desk-top publishing.
I'm afraid that we might be doing stone-age man a disservice though. At least he realised that sound freshly produced flints (flintworthy?) were vital to the successful outcome of a hunt, indeed to his very survival.
In contrast there seems to be an attitude in the RAF that the survival of one's career prospects supersede the possible survival of oneself, or more importantly others, from Flight Safety related risks. That is a concept that is utterly at variance to that which prevailed in my RAF. That is why I post here...
I'm afraid that we might be doing stone-age man a disservice though. At least he realised that sound freshly produced flints (flintworthy?) were vital to the successful outcome of a hunt, indeed to his very survival.
In contrast there seems to be an attitude in the RAF that the survival of one's career prospects supersede the possible survival of oneself, or more importantly others, from Flight Safety related risks. That is a concept that is utterly at variance to that which prevailed in my RAF. That is why I post here...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 21st Aug 2013 at 10:05.
Another good set of posts. However, I feel I must give some credence to Boeing's designers and techniques:
"The only indication as to which way to assemble it was a small faint arrow less than 1cm in length etched lightly onto the bearing."
You have to bear in mind that "Bearings" (such as SKF or Timken) are very seldom made for a single purpose and can be individually purchased and used in a plethora of devices - such as an Aft Xmsn or a Power Station Generator. Designers will almost always use commerciall y available items that they dont have to make. And Bearings have most often been designed to match a specification, e.g. for Axial Thrust - not just to fit in a specific gearbox.
So; to etch a preferred orientation is not an easy task and can only be done for the purpose for which it has be procured - not designed. Also, the depth of etching can ruin the Bearing Race's structural integrity.
A dirty great crevice in a Race is not a desired effect - and those of us who were aware of the tiny markings knew exactly what to look for as we built and repaired the Rotorheads, Swashplates, Drive Shafts and Control Rods & Levers.
As for the official "Unofficial" forums (or is it the unofficial "Official" Forums) that won't entertain posts of misdeeds in their Baileywick- that's exactly what Denial is!
"The only indication as to which way to assemble it was a small faint arrow less than 1cm in length etched lightly onto the bearing."
You have to bear in mind that "Bearings" (such as SKF or Timken) are very seldom made for a single purpose and can be individually purchased and used in a plethora of devices - such as an Aft Xmsn or a Power Station Generator. Designers will almost always use commerciall y available items that they dont have to make. And Bearings have most often been designed to match a specification, e.g. for Axial Thrust - not just to fit in a specific gearbox.
So; to etch a preferred orientation is not an easy task and can only be done for the purpose for which it has be procured - not designed. Also, the depth of etching can ruin the Bearing Race's structural integrity.
A dirty great crevice in a Race is not a desired effect - and those of us who were aware of the tiny markings knew exactly what to look for as we built and repaired the Rotorheads, Swashplates, Drive Shafts and Control Rods & Levers.
As for the official "Unofficial" forums (or is it the unofficial "Official" Forums) that won't entertain posts of misdeeds in their Baileywick- that's exactly what Denial is!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
I have sent him an email through the site, hopefully he will get in contact.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there,
I am not a pilot, nor ex RAF or anything like that, but my mum was close friends with David Chitty's wife, and I grew up with his son Richard as a close friend. I was talking to Sue on the phone two days ago as she called the house because my mum has been staying this week - David would have been celebrating his 60th birthday on the 27th April this year.
I can't remember David as I was so young at the time, but from what I've heard about him he was a special guy/father/husband. Sue and her two boys (Mark & Richard) will be coming down from north Wales to visit his grave in Hartley Wintney in April, I'll be meeting them and would like (if possible) to share some memories with them from the RAF side of the fence.
I'd be grateful if anyone that knew or worked with David could drop me a line, and something I am really hopeful of is if anyone has some pictures that they may not have seen before of him?
Thanks ever so much in advance :-)
I am not a pilot, nor ex RAF or anything like that, but my mum was close friends with David Chitty's wife, and I grew up with his son Richard as a close friend. I was talking to Sue on the phone two days ago as she called the house because my mum has been staying this week - David would have been celebrating his 60th birthday on the 27th April this year.
I can't remember David as I was so young at the time, but from what I've heard about him he was a special guy/father/husband. Sue and her two boys (Mark & Richard) will be coming down from north Wales to visit his grave in Hartley Wintney in April, I'll be meeting them and would like (if possible) to share some memories with them from the RAF side of the fence.
I'd be grateful if anyone that knew or worked with David could drop me a line, and something I am really hopeful of is if anyone has some pictures that they may not have seen before of him?
Thanks ever so much in advance :-)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the Radio Bay
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on the IoT Flt with here husband, Tony. Illness stopped me going to their wedding which I was always sad about. I think she was a lawyer after leaving the Service.
I was a flt cdr on IOT "B" Sqn with Audrey, and went to their wedding. They went off on honeymoon in a 3-abreast French sports coupe. Most days I see a similar car in the village, always brings back the memory.
RiP. If anyone in touch with Audrey, please giver my best. W
RiP. If anyone in touch with Audrey, please giver my best. W
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies so far, I did some more research on David and it would seem he was on the 225 Entry at RAF Halton - managed to find a website on it.
From what I know David was a RotoTuner (or however you spell it) - my mum recalls that David had been offered a job in civi street which he turned down shortly before the crash.
Managed to find a photo of the memorial on the island too, do they keep them maintained??
From what I know David was a RotoTuner (or however you spell it) - my mum recalls that David had been offered a job in civi street which he turned down shortly before the crash.
Managed to find a photo of the memorial on the island too, do they keep them maintained??
Just to confirm, Audrey is a very successful barrister and a google for audrey campbell-moffatt will throw up plenty of information regarding her professional career in UK and Hong Kong.
IIRC her first husband was a Phantom navigator.
O-D
IIRC her first husband was a Phantom navigator.
O-D