Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmnice,
not sure. I'll get onto it.
Thanks for the heads up
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
not sure. I'll get onto it.
Thanks for the heads up
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...C-new_21072007
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 21/07/2007
The Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who died on Wednesday aged 82, was a highly regarded Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1988 until 1996, having earlier served as a Scottish advocate and Court of Session judge; his varied cases ranged from the extraordinary Duchess of Argyll divorce case to the widely reported appeal of Westminster Abbey's dismissed organist Martin Neary.
Charles Eliot Jauncey was born in Edinburgh on May 8 1925. His father was a naval captain who won a DSO after being brought out of retirement to command destroyers during the Second World War; his mother was the daughter of Admiral Sir Charles Dundas.
Young Charles grew up in Stirlingshire and was sent to Radley. On leaving school in 1943 he joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, but was invalided out after contracting polio while serving in Ceylon; he walked with a slight limp for the rest of his life.
After reading Law at Christ Church, Oxford, and at Glasgow University, he was admitted in 1949 to the Faculty of Advocates, where he quickly established a reputation as an immensely diligent practitioner, while his family background made him particularly at home with maritime cases; in 1954 he was appointed Standing Junior Counsel to the Admiralty.
Jauncey also took a keen interest in genealogy, and as Kintyre Pursuivant of Arms for 16 years from 1955 he not only played a part in the great ceremonial occasions in Scotland, but appeared as advocate in numerous peerage cases before the Lord Lyon.
In the most notable of these he represented Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley's suit for the right to bear the arms and insignia of the Lordship of Ruthven, which would permit her a seat in the Lords.
Her claim was disputed because the patent had been lost, but Jauncey not only proved a model of lucidity, given neither to mutterings nor long pauses, but also came up with the idea of calling Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, whose evidence proved decisive.
Lengthy divorce cases were also well-suited to Jauncey's patient temperament, and between 1959 and 1963 he acted as junior counsel in one of the longest and most sensational of them all, when the 11th Duke of Argyll, Chief of the Clan Campbell and Hereditary Master of the Royal Household in Scotland, sued his wife for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
The court case lasted 11 days, with evidence which included the theft of the Duchess's racy diary, in which she had nonchalantly listed the accoutrements of her various lovers, and a pair of photographs, showing the Duchess, naked but for three strings of pearls, engaged in a sexual act with an unidentified figure who passed into folklore as "the Headless Man".
The 50,000-word judgment, in which the Duke was granted a decree, was one of the longest in the Edinburgh court's history, and described the Duchess as "completely promiscuous" and "wholly immoral".
After serving as Sheriff Principal of Fife and Kinross from 1971 to 1974 and as Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey from 1972, Jauncey became a Senator of the College of Justice in 1979.
He was destined to hear two of the longest cases in Scots legal history. One, which ran for 203 days, was the successful challenge by a toothless grandmother to Strathclyde Regional Council's right to add fluoride to the water supply. Santa Fe v Heerama, at 191 days, involved an alleged infringement of a patent in the construction of North Sea oil rigs.
When Lord Mackay of Clashfern became the first Scottish lawyer to serve as Lord Chancellor, Jauncey was seen as the ideal man to replace him as the Scottish representative among the law lords in the Upper House. On his arrival there he was sponsored by Lord Peyton, a fellow descendant of Pitt the Elder, and by his old adversary at the Scottish Bar, Lord Keith of Kinkel.
Quiet and thoughtful by nature, as well as very able, Jauncey quickly gained the trust of his colleagues and appeared in a variety of high-profile cases, including the long-running Spycatcher saga.
In 1992 he gave the main judgment in a case involving a father seeking custody of his four-year-old illegitimate daughter, dismissing his appeal against a ruling by the Court of Session that it was not in his daughter's best interests to be removed from the care of her mother.
Jauncey said it was absurd to suggest that any recognition of the normal mother's natural ability to look after a very young child amounted to sexual discrimination, adding: "Nature has endowed men and women with very different attributes and it so happens that mothers are generally better fitted than fathers to provide for the needs of very young children.
"This is no more discriminatory than the fact that only women can give birth."
The next year, in R v Brown, he ruled, in the majority, against allowing the intentional infliction of bodily harm during homosexual sado-masochistic activities.
When the House of Lords upheld, in 1995, the presumption that a child between 10 and 14 could not be found guilty of a criminal offence unless it could be shown that he was doing serious wrong, Jauncey declared: "It is almost an affront to common sense to presume that a boy of 12 or 13 who steals a high-powered motor car, damages other cars while driving it, knocks down a uniformed police officer and then runs away when stopped is unaware of doing wrong."
In 1998, two years after his retirement as a Law Lord, Jauncey was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to conduct the hearing of Dr Martin Neary, the Westminster Abbey organist who had been decorated by the Queen for his music at the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. After his dismissal, Neary had been forced to appeal directly to the Queen.
Neary and his wife, Penny, the Abbey's concerts secretary, had been sacked by the Very Reverend Wesley Carr, Dean of Westminster, backed by the Chapter, for financial misconduct, after it emerged that they had set up a private business to handle concert fees without telling anybody at the Abbey what they were doing.
Jauncey's judgment upheld the Dean and Chapter's decisions - finding that the couple's conduct had "fatally undermined the relationship of trust which should have subsisted between them and the Abbey" - although he cleared the couple of any dishonest practice.
He also strongly criticised aspects of the Abbey's handling of the affair. Its attempts to hold a disciplinary hearing within days of the couple's suspension, and without having provided a detailed statement of the case against them, "must score gamma minus on the scale of natural justice", he said.
In 2002, Jauncey chaired a specially constituted House of Lords Committee which cleared the two pilots found guilty of "gross negligence" by the Ministry of Defence after the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash.
The Mk 2 helicopter had been carrying 25 senior intelligence and security officers from Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort Campbell in north-east Scotland. Twenty-nine people died. An RAF board of inquiry, an air accident investigation board inquiry and a Scottish fatal accident inquiry all ruled that they could not determine what had led to the crash.
But two air marshals, reviewing the RAF board of inquiry, rejected its failure to accord blame and amended it to find the captain, Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper, and his co-pilot, Flight Lieutenant Richard Cook, both of whom were experienced members of the RAF's special forces flight, guilty of "negligence in the gross degree".
The House of Lords committee, chaired by Jauncey, dismissed the air marshals' conclusions.
Jauncey took an active part in proceedings of the Upper House, taking a particular interest in the Committee for Privileges. He was a member of the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland from 1951 and of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland from 1971 to 1992.
Away from the law Jauncey was a very keen countryman, and was happiest fishing the rivers of Perthshire where he lived.
He married first, in 1948, Jean Cunninghame Graham; they had two sons and a daughter. The marriage was dissolved in 1969 and he married secondly, in 1973, Elizabeth Ballingal. That marriage was also disolved and he married thirdly, in 1977, Camilla Cathcart, with whom he had a daughter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...C-new_21072007
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 21/07/2007
The Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who died on Wednesday aged 82, was a highly regarded Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1988 until 1996, having earlier served as a Scottish advocate and Court of Session judge; his varied cases ranged from the extraordinary Duchess of Argyll divorce case to the widely reported appeal of Westminster Abbey's dismissed organist Martin Neary.
Charles Eliot Jauncey was born in Edinburgh on May 8 1925. His father was a naval captain who won a DSO after being brought out of retirement to command destroyers during the Second World War; his mother was the daughter of Admiral Sir Charles Dundas.
Young Charles grew up in Stirlingshire and was sent to Radley. On leaving school in 1943 he joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, but was invalided out after contracting polio while serving in Ceylon; he walked with a slight limp for the rest of his life.
After reading Law at Christ Church, Oxford, and at Glasgow University, he was admitted in 1949 to the Faculty of Advocates, where he quickly established a reputation as an immensely diligent practitioner, while his family background made him particularly at home with maritime cases; in 1954 he was appointed Standing Junior Counsel to the Admiralty.
Jauncey also took a keen interest in genealogy, and as Kintyre Pursuivant of Arms for 16 years from 1955 he not only played a part in the great ceremonial occasions in Scotland, but appeared as advocate in numerous peerage cases before the Lord Lyon.
In the most notable of these he represented Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley's suit for the right to bear the arms and insignia of the Lordship of Ruthven, which would permit her a seat in the Lords.
Her claim was disputed because the patent had been lost, but Jauncey not only proved a model of lucidity, given neither to mutterings nor long pauses, but also came up with the idea of calling Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, whose evidence proved decisive.
Lengthy divorce cases were also well-suited to Jauncey's patient temperament, and between 1959 and 1963 he acted as junior counsel in one of the longest and most sensational of them all, when the 11th Duke of Argyll, Chief of the Clan Campbell and Hereditary Master of the Royal Household in Scotland, sued his wife for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
The court case lasted 11 days, with evidence which included the theft of the Duchess's racy diary, in which she had nonchalantly listed the accoutrements of her various lovers, and a pair of photographs, showing the Duchess, naked but for three strings of pearls, engaged in a sexual act with an unidentified figure who passed into folklore as "the Headless Man".
The 50,000-word judgment, in which the Duke was granted a decree, was one of the longest in the Edinburgh court's history, and described the Duchess as "completely promiscuous" and "wholly immoral".
After serving as Sheriff Principal of Fife and Kinross from 1971 to 1974 and as Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey from 1972, Jauncey became a Senator of the College of Justice in 1979.
He was destined to hear two of the longest cases in Scots legal history. One, which ran for 203 days, was the successful challenge by a toothless grandmother to Strathclyde Regional Council's right to add fluoride to the water supply. Santa Fe v Heerama, at 191 days, involved an alleged infringement of a patent in the construction of North Sea oil rigs.
When Lord Mackay of Clashfern became the first Scottish lawyer to serve as Lord Chancellor, Jauncey was seen as the ideal man to replace him as the Scottish representative among the law lords in the Upper House. On his arrival there he was sponsored by Lord Peyton, a fellow descendant of Pitt the Elder, and by his old adversary at the Scottish Bar, Lord Keith of Kinkel.
Quiet and thoughtful by nature, as well as very able, Jauncey quickly gained the trust of his colleagues and appeared in a variety of high-profile cases, including the long-running Spycatcher saga.
In 1992 he gave the main judgment in a case involving a father seeking custody of his four-year-old illegitimate daughter, dismissing his appeal against a ruling by the Court of Session that it was not in his daughter's best interests to be removed from the care of her mother.
Jauncey said it was absurd to suggest that any recognition of the normal mother's natural ability to look after a very young child amounted to sexual discrimination, adding: "Nature has endowed men and women with very different attributes and it so happens that mothers are generally better fitted than fathers to provide for the needs of very young children.
"This is no more discriminatory than the fact that only women can give birth."
The next year, in R v Brown, he ruled, in the majority, against allowing the intentional infliction of bodily harm during homosexual sado-masochistic activities.
When the House of Lords upheld, in 1995, the presumption that a child between 10 and 14 could not be found guilty of a criminal offence unless it could be shown that he was doing serious wrong, Jauncey declared: "It is almost an affront to common sense to presume that a boy of 12 or 13 who steals a high-powered motor car, damages other cars while driving it, knocks down a uniformed police officer and then runs away when stopped is unaware of doing wrong."
In 1998, two years after his retirement as a Law Lord, Jauncey was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to conduct the hearing of Dr Martin Neary, the Westminster Abbey organist who had been decorated by the Queen for his music at the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. After his dismissal, Neary had been forced to appeal directly to the Queen.
Neary and his wife, Penny, the Abbey's concerts secretary, had been sacked by the Very Reverend Wesley Carr, Dean of Westminster, backed by the Chapter, for financial misconduct, after it emerged that they had set up a private business to handle concert fees without telling anybody at the Abbey what they were doing.
Jauncey's judgment upheld the Dean and Chapter's decisions - finding that the couple's conduct had "fatally undermined the relationship of trust which should have subsisted between them and the Abbey" - although he cleared the couple of any dishonest practice.
He also strongly criticised aspects of the Abbey's handling of the affair. Its attempts to hold a disciplinary hearing within days of the couple's suspension, and without having provided a detailed statement of the case against them, "must score gamma minus on the scale of natural justice", he said.
In 2002, Jauncey chaired a specially constituted House of Lords Committee which cleared the two pilots found guilty of "gross negligence" by the Ministry of Defence after the 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash.
The Mk 2 helicopter had been carrying 25 senior intelligence and security officers from Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort Campbell in north-east Scotland. Twenty-nine people died. An RAF board of inquiry, an air accident investigation board inquiry and a Scottish fatal accident inquiry all ruled that they could not determine what had led to the crash.
But two air marshals, reviewing the RAF board of inquiry, rejected its failure to accord blame and amended it to find the captain, Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper, and his co-pilot, Flight Lieutenant Richard Cook, both of whom were experienced members of the RAF's special forces flight, guilty of "negligence in the gross degree".
The House of Lords committee, chaired by Jauncey, dismissed the air marshals' conclusions.
Jauncey took an active part in proceedings of the Upper House, taking a particular interest in the Committee for Privileges. He was a member of the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland from 1951 and of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland from 1971 to 1992.
Away from the law Jauncey was a very keen countryman, and was happiest fishing the rivers of Perthshire where he lived.
He married first, in 1948, Jean Cunninghame Graham; they had two sons and a daughter. The marriage was dissolved in 1969 and he married secondly, in 1973, Elizabeth Ballingal. That marriage was also disolved and he married thirdly, in 1977, Camilla Cathcart, with whom he had a daughter.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you HectorusRex,
A good man. May he rest in peace.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
A good man. May he rest in peace.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Brian,
Wow. I doff my hat to you for your efforts and perserverance. I'm sure the lads on ARRSE, Rum Ration and e-Goat will all be ready to move (a la Ashstead) upon receipt of a warning order. If you ever need any help, etc.
Well done for doing them all proud. They deserve no less.
Sincerely,
Al.
Wow. I doff my hat to you for your efforts and perserverance. I'm sure the lads on ARRSE, Rum Ration and e-Goat will all be ready to move (a la Ashstead) upon receipt of a warning order. If you ever need any help, etc.
Well done for doing them all proud. They deserve no less.
Sincerely,
Al.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al,
many thanks for your kind words. I have to say that the Campaign is always reassured when common sense prevails (as in the recent case at Ashted).
There may well be a 'call to arms' in the near future because the research work of the Campaign Group is nearing completion, and the Group will be seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence sometime in the Autumn.
It may be that there is a request for our supporters to write to the SoS, and for a petition to be registered on the Downing Street site prior to the meeting, so that the depth of feeling towards this injustice is made known.
As always, everyone will be kept up to date with any developments.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
many thanks for your kind words. I have to say that the Campaign is always reassured when common sense prevails (as in the recent case at Ashted).
There may well be a 'call to arms' in the near future because the research work of the Campaign Group is nearing completion, and the Group will be seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence sometime in the Autumn.
It may be that there is a request for our supporters to write to the SoS, and for a petition to be registered on the Downing Street site prior to the meeting, so that the depth of feeling towards this injustice is made known.
As always, everyone will be kept up to date with any developments.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeping up the pressure
Brian,
Well said. If we (ie you!) keep on hammering away at the recalcitrant (= stupid) politicos, justice will eventually HAVE to be done. The Ashtead case, over the simply wonderful work done at Headley Court and the impact of combat injuries on service families, showed how a public outcry can influence even low-level political decisions.
I was recently talking to an old RAF mate (not a chopper man) who startled me by saying he knew both Wratten and Day and that if THEY thought it was gross negligence, then because of his respect for them both, it must be so. I asked if he had seen this site: he hadn't. I'm very pleased to say that he now understands why their finding cannot be allowed to stand.
All power to your pen, Brian!
Kind regards.
Vertico
Well said. If we (ie you!) keep on hammering away at the recalcitrant (= stupid) politicos, justice will eventually HAVE to be done. The Ashtead case, over the simply wonderful work done at Headley Court and the impact of combat injuries on service families, showed how a public outcry can influence even low-level political decisions.
I was recently talking to an old RAF mate (not a chopper man) who startled me by saying he knew both Wratten and Day and that if THEY thought it was gross negligence, then because of his respect for them both, it must be so. I asked if he had seen this site: he hadn't. I'm very pleased to say that he now understands why their finding cannot be allowed to stand.
All power to your pen, Brian!
Kind regards.
Vertico
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reading this thread for the first time in sadness and disbelief.
I thought Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper and Flt Lt Richard Cook had been exhonerated before now. I must have misread/ misheard a news report.
Brian, I wish you strength and good health in your effort to give their families the just outcome they surely deserve.
I thought Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper and Flt Lt Richard Cook had been exhonerated before now. I must have misread/ misheard a news report.
Brian, I wish you strength and good health in your effort to give their families the just outcome they surely deserve.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Speyside
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Keep up the pressure. I have a funny feeling we may have another whitewash in the offing (XV230). I'll sign any petition you organise. Justice has to be done, and be seen to be done.
Keep up the pressure. I have a funny feeling we may have another whitewash in the offing (XV230). I'll sign any petition you organise. Justice has to be done, and be seen to be done.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you ILoadMyself.
It was a media spin that made it look like Jon and Rick had been exhonerated after the House of Lords Select Committee. That received lots of press, but funnily enough the Government's rebuttal didn't. Misdirection? Surely not!
LL206Sqn
One year on from your loss. I hope that you don't have to wait too much longer for the BoI conclusions. Thank you for your support. A call to arms is not too far away now.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
It was a media spin that made it look like Jon and Rick had been exhonerated after the House of Lords Select Committee. That received lots of press, but funnily enough the Government's rebuttal didn't. Misdirection? Surely not!
LL206Sqn
One year on from your loss. I hope that you don't have to wait too much longer for the BoI conclusions. Thank you for your support. A call to arms is not too far away now.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Brian,
Just tried to have a look at your website. All I get is an error msg:
"Firefox can't find the server at www.gajclnet.34sp.com"
...although the page title "The campaign for justice for the pilots of ZD576" shows up OK.
Thought you should know.
I wish you all the best with the campaign.
Regards,
Nacluv
Just tried to have a look at your website. All I get is an error msg:
"Firefox can't find the server at www.gajclnet.34sp.com"
...although the page title "The campaign for justice for the pilots of ZD576" shows up OK.
Thought you should know.
I wish you all the best with the campaign.
Regards,
Nacluv
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much nacluv. We're trying to get the website sorted.
Hopefully some news in the not too distant future as to the matters we have been working on for the past few months.
Sorry there's not been much news lately, but I can assure everyone the Campaign has been incredibly busy.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Hopefully some news in the not too distant future as to the matters we have been working on for the past few months.
Sorry there's not been much news lately, but I can assure everyone the Campaign has been incredibly busy.
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Keep at it Brian. I fly over the Mull often and always have a look down and think of the guys and the injustice.
Keep pressing. There's a lot of people out here hoping you get the result that is so deserved
Keep pressing. There's a lot of people out here hoping you get the result that is so deserved
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought you might like some weather photos and a video of the ground hugging mist on the Mull – all taken by me in September.
This one (from the north) shows just orographic cloud on the Mull formed by a slight wind:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=b0710be0.jpg
This one (from the north) shows just orographic cloud on the Mull formed by a slight wind:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=b0710be0.jpg
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just ground mist on Ailsa Craig – strong wind from camera position towards island) – no orographic cloud:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=5eda2d6b.jpg
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=5eda2d6b.jpg
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a late evening shot of the Mull from the north with a moderate wind blowing in from the sea – the cloud and mist are light grey as opposed to the distant (and higher) general cloud base – here you can see that the orographic cloud forming the “table top” is met with the ground hugging mist coming up the slope:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=d00eae69.jpg
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=d00eae69.jpg
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here is a video taken near the crash site of the mist forming – please note that it is of limited height from the ground (one of the light house keepers on hearing the Chinook approaching said that it would be alright as it would be flying above the mist - local knowledge):
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=DSCF0414.flv
The ground hugging nature of this mist is due to a phenomenon termed “speed up” whereby the layer nearest the ground is squeezed and travels faster than the bulk air mass; (Bernouilli?) the faster the air the lower the pressure the lower the temperature and hey presto the layer nearest the ground reaches its dew point in advance of the bulk air mass.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']These pictures were taken in September in far from ideal conditions for the formation of such mist – an evening in June with the usual prevailing wind blowing would result in a solid blanket of the mist extending for most of the slope but of limited depth. On the day, the orographic cloud was 900 ft and would have extended out a considerable distance before the Mull but they would have been OK beneath it – the problem was not one of flying in bad weather but that the mist (which you knew where it was because it was on the ground) obscured ground detail making visual judgment of range/distance to the Mull very difficult – you would require navigation to keep you away from it and stay in VFR! – and you would want a fixed local reference navaid of some sort if you, for whatever reason, wanted to go in close.[/FONT]
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=DSCF0414.flv
The ground hugging nature of this mist is due to a phenomenon termed “speed up” whereby the layer nearest the ground is squeezed and travels faster than the bulk air mass; (Bernouilli?) the faster the air the lower the pressure the lower the temperature and hey presto the layer nearest the ground reaches its dew point in advance of the bulk air mass.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']These pictures were taken in September in far from ideal conditions for the formation of such mist – an evening in June with the usual prevailing wind blowing would result in a solid blanket of the mist extending for most of the slope but of limited depth. On the day, the orographic cloud was 900 ft and would have extended out a considerable distance before the Mull but they would have been OK beneath it – the problem was not one of flying in bad weather but that the mist (which you knew where it was because it was on the ground) obscured ground detail making visual judgment of range/distance to the Mull very difficult – you would require navigation to keep you away from it and stay in VFR! – and you would want a fixed local reference navaid of some sort if you, for whatever reason, wanted to go in close.[/FONT]
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As any of you would know who regularly flew in the area (and there would be a few of you out there) the conditions on the day were entirely typical/common.
You can count on them given a weather forecast and most of the time in summer, the prevailing wind would produce the results in the late afternoon/evening.
It is a pity that so many of you did not ask the Sea King pilot if there were any photos taken at the time - the one that, attending the scene, landed at the larger area for which waypoint A was the inner marker, etc etc #
You who have flown this route - how can you not come forward and clear these issues up now?
You can count on them given a weather forecast and most of the time in summer, the prevailing wind would produce the results in the late afternoon/evening.
It is a pity that so many of you did not ask the Sea King pilot if there were any photos taken at the time - the one that, attending the scene, landed at the larger area for which waypoint A was the inner marker, etc etc #
You who have flown this route - how can you not come forward and clear these issues up now?