Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is so worrying in all this is the stubborn resistance of the caz/baston/JP brigade to recognise that we ALL know it was 'flown' in IMC/cloud into a hill. We all know the Mull has frequent typical up-slope stratus. That has never been in dispute. Do the 3 of you understand that? I do hope so.
The key questions are the meaning of 'flown', and was there sufficient proof of deliberate action to justify the RO's 'finding'. This constant soap-boxing of the actual weather conditions does NOTHING to answer those questions and actually indicates a lack of understanding of how low-level flights are conducted by operational crew. Not one of you have offered any proof of negligence, only assumption. Like the ROs, you have simply ignored the clear requirements of a Board of Enquiry for reasons we know not.
I should add, as before stated, I do not see this campaign as a campaign to 'clear the pilots' names'. I see it as an effort to have a significant breach of Air Force instructions by the ROs over-turned, a clear admission that the Mk II was not 'fit for service' at the time and that tasking it for this mission was probably an error. We now have, in the public domain, the fact that the condition and suitability of at least 2 of the RAF's aircraft types was not ''fit for service'. A significant change since 1994 which casts doubt on the integrity of senior officers and politicians in this matter. I personally would settle for a cause 'not determined'.
It appears that in all probability, part of the Mull was visible at WPT change. That, I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence.We know it continued towards the Mull and crashed in cloud. The gap here is what happened between those two events. It could have been 'gross negligence' indeed, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That was the requirement for judgement. It was not followed.
The key questions are the meaning of 'flown', and was there sufficient proof of deliberate action to justify the RO's 'finding'. This constant soap-boxing of the actual weather conditions does NOTHING to answer those questions and actually indicates a lack of understanding of how low-level flights are conducted by operational crew. Not one of you have offered any proof of negligence, only assumption. Like the ROs, you have simply ignored the clear requirements of a Board of Enquiry for reasons we know not.
I should add, as before stated, I do not see this campaign as a campaign to 'clear the pilots' names'. I see it as an effort to have a significant breach of Air Force instructions by the ROs over-turned, a clear admission that the Mk II was not 'fit for service' at the time and that tasking it for this mission was probably an error. We now have, in the public domain, the fact that the condition and suitability of at least 2 of the RAF's aircraft types was not ''fit for service'. A significant change since 1994 which casts doubt on the integrity of senior officers and politicians in this matter. I personally would settle for a cause 'not determined'.
It appears that in all probability, part of the Mull was visible at WPT change. That, I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence.We know it continued towards the Mull and crashed in cloud. The gap here is what happened between those two events. It could have been 'gross negligence' indeed, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That was the requirement for judgement. It was not followed.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
I think I understand your frustration..........it works both ways!
The moot point is "what happened between these two events" - with no evidence to the contrary
that nothing happened. They just made a fatal error of judgement.
Further
- No - but does there have to be? In-action is more likely on the evidence. No one does this sort of thing on purpose
I think I understand your frustration..........it works both ways!
It appears that in all probability, part of the Mull was visible at WPT change. That, I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence.We know it continued towards the Mull and crashed in cloud. The gap here is what happened between those two events. It could have been 'gross negligence' indeed, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That was the requirement for judgement. It was not followed.
I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence
Further
and was there sufficient proof of deliberate action
bast0n:
Sorry, bast0n, not quite with you there. To the contrary of what? To the finding? Well, if so that's the whole point! It was arrived at in that very manner, with no evidence (to the contrary of loss of control for example). The whole RAF BoI review system seems to rely on the basis that SO's are infallible because they are...SO's. Once they have made such a ruling it must not be overturned because of "Command Integrity". I'm sorry, but you cannot run Accident Investigation on that basis. This aircraft crashed for a reason. Whatever that reason was, one thing is clear to me, that reason has yet to be properly discovered by the RAF. Neither the BoI nor the RO's did so. One senior officer backed up by his seniors, coming up with a reason on the basis of "modelling", disregarding some evidence, constructing cloud extent, using the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence doesn't come close to the standards required.
Fitter2 draws our attention to the standards of Flight Safety taken almost for granted in civil aviation when you buy a ticket to fly. Would you have such confidence if the Chief Pilot of BA was the final arbiter of why his 777 landed with a crump in the LHR undershoot? Would its unique problems of icing in the engine fuel delivery system have been discovered, as it was by the AAIB? Far more likely that yet two more pilots would have taken the rap. This finding is unacceptable. This system is unacceptable. Both must be changed.
The moot point is "what happened between these two events" - with no evidence to the contrary
Fitter2 draws our attention to the standards of Flight Safety taken almost for granted in civil aviation when you buy a ticket to fly. Would you have such confidence if the Chief Pilot of BA was the final arbiter of why his 777 landed with a crump in the LHR undershoot? Would its unique problems of icing in the engine fuel delivery system have been discovered, as it was by the AAIB? Far more likely that yet two more pilots would have taken the rap. This finding is unacceptable. This system is unacceptable. Both must be changed.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHUGAZ
Sorry if I was not clear.
If there is no evidence as to what happened between the two occurrences, waypoint and impact - and there is not - anyone can try to insert any and every scenario that crosses their mind. (and looking at lots of posts that is exactly what is happening). If there is no evidence can we not surmise that nothing happened? Just a mistake as I have said before?
Sorry, bast0n, not quite with you there. To the contrary of what? To the finding?
If there is no evidence as to what happened between the two occurrences, waypoint and impact - and there is not - anyone can try to insert any and every scenario that crosses their mind. (and looking at lots of posts that is exactly what is happening). If there is no evidence can we not surmise that nothing happened? Just a mistake as I have said before?
Thank you for coming back so promptly bast0n, and apologies BOAC for jumping in on a post directed to you. I will attempt to jump out of the way again ASAP!
Brief answer, bast0n, no! No surmising at all would be a very good rule of thumb to adhere to anyway in Aircraft Accident Investigations, but certainly where you are constrained by regulation to be right "beyond all doubt whatsoever". Sorry, I know your attitude to the latter, but neither you nor I (nor W&D!) decide these things, the Air Board does it seems, and did!
If there is no evidence can we not surmise that nothing happened?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 16th Jul 2009 at 13:44. Reason: Words dear boy, words!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugaz
Well yes - but is not that exactly what lots of people here are trying to do - insert possibilities into the gap between air and impact...........?
No surmising at all would be a very good rule of thumb to adhere to
Well perhaps bast0n, but that simply shows that there were many possible permutations of what actually happened, other than the RO's finding. If you have a feeble accident investigation topped off with an arbitrary finding based on a "model" then this is what you get. 15 years of alternative solutions! Unlike the BoI or the RO's findings this forum is not a formal accident investigation and is thus not constrained by the rules that they (in theory at least) were bound by. Yet I would suggest that more has emerged here, at the FAI and especially at the HoL than was ever considered or revealed by the BoI or RO's. That is not a judgement on those who post here. That is a judgement on the BoI, the RO's and the RAF!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey,
I am not seeking your help, merely your opinion:
I would also welcome the view of Bast0n & Caz on this matter.
I am not seeking your help, merely your opinion:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes - but is not that exactly what lots of people here are trying to do - insert possibilities into the gap between air and impact...........?
8-15 from odiam
Quote:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
No from me. Not relevant to the final moments.
Quote:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
No from me. Not relevant to the final moments.
Safety is relevant to all aspects of aviation. The CA Release and Release to Service are products of the Safety Management System, as applied to aircraft.
The BoI process is an aspect of aviation safety management, playing a vital role in identifying problems and preventing recurrence.
The Secretary of State mandates safety management shall be carried forward through service to the disposal phase.
That there were failures in the mandated Safety Management System as it applied to Chinook Mk2 is beyond doubt; MoD has admitted it. For example, CDP when giving evidence to the HCDC in 1999.
MoD has stated airworthiness was not in the BoI’s remit. Therefore, unless delegated elsewhere, it rests with the convening officer. Has anyone seen his report on the subject?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Please read all my posts and you will see that I do not, and never have claimed absolute knowledge. That is as silly as "beyond all doubt".
Oh - perhaps I am not one of "you three" and should not be answering...
I don't think anyone else is claiming absolute knowledge either - apart from you three and the ROs
Oh - perhaps I am not one of "you three" and should not be answering...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
For the first time in my life I have some sympathy with JP. We are making enough circles for several Olympic flags.
1. Read again our long "debate" on forecast v actual.
2. Lighthouse certain IFR. Crash site almost certain IFR.
3. Two to three miles from the coast probable VFR.
4&5. Very little evidence of a technical malfunction. ( Before you say none whatsoever read Burke and Witness A again at HOL.)
Also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a technical malfunction did not take place.
You need an ADR and CVR for that. Not a TANS or Boeing simulation.
Bast0n,
Feel free to quote back at me whenever you like but do so accurately. I never use bold.
For the first time in my life I have some sympathy with JP. We are making enough circles for several Olympic flags.
1. Read again our long "debate" on forecast v actual.
2. Lighthouse certain IFR. Crash site almost certain IFR.
3. Two to three miles from the coast probable VFR.
4&5. Very little evidence of a technical malfunction. ( Before you say none whatsoever read Burke and Witness A again at HOL.)
Also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a technical malfunction did not take place.
You need an ADR and CVR for that. Not a TANS or Boeing simulation.
Bast0n,
Feel free to quote back at me whenever you like but do so accurately. I never use bold.
Chaps,
This thread is getting so very tortuos.
I have said before that there are only two people alive who know with "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" what happened on that fateful day: Wratten and Day.
There are many people on this thread who believe/think/surmise/postulate etc, etc about possible influencing events ranging from extra-terrestial infulences to a bee sting and, of course, including airworthiness. All such theorising is a total irrelevancy in this case. I, too, have my theory - but that is also irrelevant, only fact is relevant.
Is there anyone out there who will categorically state on this thread that they know, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, what happened that day?
If so, could they please make the statement and, more importantly back it up with fact and not supposition?
This thread is getting so very tortuos.
I have said before that there are only two people alive who know with "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" what happened on that fateful day: Wratten and Day.
There are many people on this thread who believe/think/surmise/postulate etc, etc about possible influencing events ranging from extra-terrestial infulences to a bee sting and, of course, including airworthiness. All such theorising is a total irrelevancy in this case. I, too, have my theory - but that is also irrelevant, only fact is relevant.
Is there anyone out there who will categorically state on this thread that they know, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, what happened that day?
If so, could they please make the statement and, more importantly back it up with fact and not supposition?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DALEK
I was emphasising a point. I apologise if it upset you - but pretty trivial in the overall scheme of things.
1.3VStall
Not a scenario that can ever be played out practically in any aspect of life - therefore a meaningless aspiration. As I have said before - several times - there can never be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", so why keep going there?
Feel free to quote back at me whenever you like but do so accurately. I never use bold.
1.3VStall
absolutely no doubt whatsoever
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.3Vstall.
You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.
As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of theml. That failure was the negligence.
Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP
You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.
As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of theml. That failure was the negligence.
Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP
So the basis of the RO's finding, JP, is a negative. Because the aircraft wasn't turned away from running into the mist shrouded hillside the pilots were Grossly Negligent? Is that the RAF's case? To make that stick the RO's had to be content that the aircraft could have been turned away. An aircraft type with a history of jammed flight controls, wreckage in which all the control springs were detached from the control pallet, wreckage in which the pedals were 70 degrees hard over. Now those facts don't prove that they couldn't turn away, but how on earth do they prove, along with everything else, that they could beyond all doubt?
This roundabout will keep on turning I'm afraid!
This roundabout will keep on turning I'm afraid!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.3Vstall.
You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.
As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of them and we simply do not know why. We suspect That failure was the negligence but we cannot say so with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP
You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.
As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of them and we simply do not know why. We suspect That failure was the negligence but we cannot say so with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP