PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th Jul 2009, 08:48   #5261 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
John Purdey.
Your 5306
You asked five questions. I have answered the first two.
Now answer my second.

Yes / no / don't know.
No "waffle please"
dalek is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 10:00   #5262 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,283
Wow - I get put on the ignore list because I ask a simple yes/no question which if answered would put an end to this thread once and for all.

Guess that means the answer is no!
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 12:11   #5263 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 59
Posts: 0
As an aside:

An ignore list is the BBS equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting loudly "I can't hear you"... All it lacks is the drama of the foot stamping.

Quote:
what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
I'd suggest that it could have mattered a lot. Since no-one will ever know the conversation could, just as easily, have been:-

Pilot 1: I can't move the controls, can you?

Pilot 2: Err.. No...

Pilot 1: Oh Pooh...

In fact the only conversations that would have been worrisome would have been one where no-one was talking or no-one was talking about the conduct of the flight or the state of the aircraft in the last ten seconds leading up to the crash. So, yes. What the two pilots said to each other would have been very important to have known.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 15:00   #5264 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
John Purdey,
If I am allowed to change your Q2 to "Some" of the hierarchy, my answer is an unqualified "Yes"

Now answer my Q2.
dalek is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 17:08   #5265 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Round in circles again!

Meanwhile, Chugalug you said on 16th April:
"There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big".

Like several colleagues out here in the sticks, I cannot hold my breath any longer. Can you yet share your secret with us or at least give us a clue?

John Purdey
John Purdey is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 18:07   #5266 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Is Chugalug talking about the Puma / Catterick accident...?
spheroid is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 18:11   #5267 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Break the Circle

JP could you respond to my #5310? In the manner of debate, I am not looking for Yes/No answers just your reasoned opinion.
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 19:37   #5268 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 75
Posts: 3,659
JP:
Quote:
Round in circles again!
JP, you are the only one going around in circles because you know full well that you have asked this question of me before, at post 5063, and received a series of answers thereafter (for as ever you were not content with just one). For everyone else; he is referring to a post I wrote to Walter in which I acknowledged one of the possibilities that he had posted. His theory is that a clandestine landing was being attempted on the Mull LZ. He feels that the aircraft could have been misdirected deliberately in order that it crashed and if that were so there was then advantage both to terrorists and the state. I am on record as stating that I don’t think that such a landing was being attempted anyway let alone being misdirected purposely or otherwise!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 22:50   #5269 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
It's annoying, having people put the wrong spin on something you've written, isn't it, Chugs?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 23:14   #5270 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Brian
Pardon my frustration I expressed recently at the Group but I really think there is something very specific you can follow up here.
I had pointed to a transcript which surely you would have access to (the BOI).
I had pointed out a specific piece of blacking-out that may help us all understand possible actions in this flight.
I had (previously to your prompt) asked specific questions under FOI and am …. waiting for the MOD to respond.
I have thought of a way that the answer on that classified equipment may be obtained without their having to disclose what the equipment was to the public domain in the case that it was not relevent: could the Mull Group not, as an interested party, ask someone they trust who had eyeballed the un-abridged transcript to comment on whether it was the CPLS system or not? If there is no one available who could remember, could a deal not be done whereby a trusted 3rd party, say a senior judge or the like, who the state could also trust to be discrete could eyeball the un-abridged transcript and answer only in the scope of whether the blacked out text (describing the classified equipment) was “Covert Personnel Locator System” or not?
You may not like the path I am following but it at least gives you (the Group) two angles to try to get a review of the case (if they can be established to some reasonable extent):
!. If there was a piece of kit fitted that could have been used for local navigation in any way yet has not been disclosed, then the original BOI would have been inadequate;
2. If there had been an extra task put on them that has not been disclosed then again the original BOI would have been inadequate.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 09:43   #5271 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

8.15fromOdium.

Thanks for your 5310.
1. I have not seen the letter to which you refer, but the quote you give is along the lines you suggest.
2. The para seems less than clear to me.

We have, of course been here before, but just to repeat one last time; if the Chinooks were not airworthy, exacly what rectification was undertaken?
If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.

Is that what you are saying?

Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 10:05   #5272 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 71
Posts: 1,745
Airborne Aircrew

Your #5321

I feel you are being a trifle pedantic.

Surely, if contemplating the use of the "Ignore" faclity, "Seldom" should be the watchword.
cazatou is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 10:31   #5273 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 75
Posts: 3,659
Walter Kennedy:
Quote:
It's annoying, having people put the wrong spin on something you've written, isn't it, Chugs?
More a case that some people are simply annoying, Walter.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 10:35   #5274 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,371
JP, the way I read that RWTS paragraph is that they were not convinced the aircraft was safe, a relatively small step short of saying it was unsafe. They had questions about a number of FADEC issues that they did not understand and were not willing to endorse the aircraft until they received a satisfactory answer. This stance seems to be entirely reasonable to me and, if ignored, someone in a position of power accepted an extraordinary level of personal risk.

I agree that if RWTS stand by that statement and no changes have been made to the aircraft, then it is still not airworthy. Furthermore, if one were to apply civilian standards, the aircraft would never be airworthy unless a back-to-birth process were properly followed.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 11:17   #5275 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 71
Posts: 1,745
Chugalug2

Your #5331

Is your "annoying" the same as "irritating" - like Brian Dixon's motto?
cazatou is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 11:34   #5276 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 925
Quote:
We have, of course been here before, but just to repeat one last time; if the Chinooks were not airworthy, exacly what rectification was undertaken?
If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.
As a matter of interest, is it still a requirement that vital connectors have to be checked every 15 minutes?

If not, then something has changed.

Of course, if the paper trail does not reflect reality, anything might have changed.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 13:28   #5277 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
John Purdey,
It seems that our game of "truth and consequences" has come to an end.

You have learned well from your "Masters", young apprentice.
Only enter into evidence that which suits the cause. Studiously ignore everything else.

No matter. Your answer to my Q1 give me all I need.

If the Boeing and TANS simulations were not true and accurate portrayals of events, then it is impossible to deduce any "facts" from them. You admitted this for the first time.

By producing simulation evidence to the HOL as "facts", Sir William and Sir John were deliberatlely attempting to mislead them.

This could only be due to the fact:
a. They were deliberately being "less than honest."
b. They had been badly briefed by their Staffs.
Either way,it was a pretty shoddy attempt to influence the outcome.
The "dumb" civilians were clever enough to see through the attempt.

When in a hole stop digging.
It is you that insisted on simple yes / no answers but were completely unable to follow your own instructions.
"what did the two pilots say to each other, What does it matter."

Every competent Accident Investigating Branch in the world regards CVR evidence almost as important as ADR evidence. It is essential to find out not only what happened but why it happened. If you cannot see the importance of this you are clearly no expert on Flight Safety or Accident investigation matters.

Last edited by dalek; 14th Jul 2009 at 06:56.
dalek is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 16:34   #5278 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. Please yourself., but spare me the childish accusation that I am speaking on behalf of MOD. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 17:29   #5279 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Mr Purdey,

thank you for your response to my last. If you click the link labelled 'Channel 4 Website' in my #5310 this will bring up the letter. I would appreciate you having a look at it and giving your considered response to my questions:

(1) If you agree that I have transcribed the paragraph accurately.
(2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe.

Now in response to your question to me:

Quote:
If no rectification was undertaken, then presumably the Chinooks are still not airworthy.
I am not qualified to make a statement on the aircraft airworthiness, but I seem to remember a lot of work going on on the Mk2 Chinook post arrival from Boeing (and both pre and post the Mull). I also seem to recall that some of this work was to the FADEC. However, I must place the caveat on this statement that it was not my trade area and my mind could be playing tricks. This is the reason I asked Atlantic Cowboy, who claims to be involved in the investigation, if an airworthiness audit was carried out (#4070 ) an answer which you agreed was required (your #4355). Since then Atlantic Cowboy has not been about.

Best regards 8-15
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2009, 18:46   #5280 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 59
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne Aircrew View Post
As an aside:

An ignore list is the BBS equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting loudly "I can't hear you"... All it lacks is the drama of the foot stamping.
AA,

The most satisfying thing about being placed on their ignore list is the knowledge that the questions those being ignored have posed, because of there simplicity and absolute unambiguity have proved so troublesome to answer that "ignore" is the only option

8-15

Atlantic Cowboy is most definitely around right right now, he is simply posting under another name
Seldomfitforpurpose is online now  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:02.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1