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 25th Jul 2009, 10:16   #5461 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 928
Excellent parroting of the Wratten and Day mantra.

But the '2 experienced Chinook Pilots and a Chinook Engineer' did not find any evidence to support a verdict of negilgence, even when relevant evidence was withheld from them (but subsequently available to the HOL enquiry).

Caz does not seem to have any rational response to recent posts repeating the evidence that supports why Messrs. W & D simply overuled their BOI to divert attention away from the state of airworthiness (or lack of) subsequently exposed by the Hercules and Nimrod tragedies.

2 down, 1 to go.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 10:34   #5462 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
Cazatou,

You very conveniently forget:

1. The BOI were not "experienced" they were "inexperienced". That is not my opinion but that of Sir William Wratten, given in his interview to Jeremy Paxman.

2. The BOI in spite of failing to take any evidence from Burke, Witness A or any other evidence of Airworthiness did not find the pilots guilty of Gross Negligence.

It was only the "inexperienced" Wratten and Day who did so.
dalek is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 11:39   #5463 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 928
Whether an aircraft tasked for use in a hostile environment, and that has equipment intended to make a major safety contribution available, but not fitted (contrary to the policy applied by other air forces with the same type) has an airworthiness issue is a matter of opinion - as is the cause of the accident in this thread.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 12:21   #5464 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
Wratten, given in his interview to Jeremy Paxman.
That was a most memorable interview. I don't recall having seen Paxman flummoxed by such sheer unblinking arrogance from any other interviewee before or since.
BEagle is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 12:40   #5465 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
There is no conceivable airworthiness link to that.

Read JSP 553 and Def Stan 00-970.


As for Chinook, the Chief of Defence Procurement (4 Star) openly admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that one of the core, mandated components of airworthiness was not implemented. By definition, the RTS was flawed, as there was no audit trail (also a mandated requirement).

You will, I think, understand that these committees give advance notice of such questions. However, the members don't necessarily understand the question, so when CDP made his admission they didn't follow up. Not that he would have been in a position to answer more detailed questions, as junior staffs had been actively prevented from briefing him. "We can't have you telling him the truth".

It must be obvious to all that such a staggering admission was actually damage limitation. Take the hit on that, hope they don't go deeper (and hope it goes unnoticed by the likes of the Mull Group). I think Haddon-Cave will, but too late for some.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 13:19   #5466 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 75
Posts: 3,677
caz:
Quote:
You consistently fail to acknowledge in your Posts regarding the Investigating Board that it consisted of 2 experienced Chinook Pilots and a Chinook Engineer. They were well versed in the problems that had arisen during the introduction of the Mk2. They were unable to find any evidence that the pilots were NOT in control of the aircraft prior to impact. On the contrary, the aircraft attitude at impact indicated a belated attempt at an escape manouvre.
You could no doubt say the same of the Hercules and Nimrod BoIs, caz, and not withstanding Olive's default MOD "blame the crew" for its own failures, neither identified the cause of both accidents - lack of airworthiness. It took HM's Coroners to do their job for them, just as it took the HoL to do the job of this one. Accident Investigation is an integral part of the Regulatory Process, and yet separated from the Regulator (the CAA) in Civil Aviation to ensure complete objectivity. My abiding image of an AAIB Inspector is of him standing on the rim of a crater in Lincolnshire. He wears an old tweed jacket with leather patches sewn at the elbows. He sucks on an empty pipe and declares, " It was fully stalled and yet there was at least intermediate power being produced". He is a professional, interested only in discovering what caused the accident and how to prevent it in future. OK, my image is set in my time, a long gone era of which we now know little, but come forward to the BA777 LHR accident and we see his modern counterpart bent on exactly the same objective task. As I have said before, if he and his colleagues were instead "experienced BA pilots and engineers" co-opted by the Chief Pilot to a "BA BoI" the chances of a professional and objective investigation would be minimal. Self-Regulation always fails. In aviation it kills. The failure of self-regulation in UK Military Airworthiness and Aircraft Accident Investigation has cost at least 60 lives if you include, as I do, this accident (29 dead), Sea King (7 dead), Hercules (10 dead) and Nimrod (14 dead). Time to move Airworthiness Provision and Accident Investigation away from the MOD and RAF to a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB as a matter of great urgency.
PS. As regards what the BoI was able or unable to find, see my posts above. I contend that for the most part they were not even looking!

Last edited by Chugalug2; 25th Jul 2009 at 13:34.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 14:05   #5467 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Fitter2. If you are referring to me in your 5292, it is not a case of 'down', but of sheer boredom with folk who cannot see where the negligence ocurred!
JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 16:45   #5468 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 928
JP

Not me, chief, 5292 was Tecumseh.

As for where and when the negligence occured, the appropriate officer of the Crown has decided that. If the MOD continue to stick their fingers in their ears and go "Nah, nah, nah" I am not responsible for that.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 16:54   #5469 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Fitter2. Sorry about the misprint; it should have read 5528. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 17:11   #5470 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 928
2 down refers to the MOD's acknowlegement that failings in the airworthiness system caused (or contributed to, depending on your interpretation) the fatal accidents to a Hercules and a Nimrod.

Whether the CDP's acknowledgement of the failings in the RTS of the Chinook Mk2 referred to in Tecumseh's post #5533 above means that three are now down will not be true until Wratten and Day's refusal to comply with the AP is recognised and overturned.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 17:22   #5471 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
sheer boredom with folk who cannot see where the negligence ocurred!
Boredom? Boredom??

I'm so very sorry that you feel 'bored', Purdey, but others are more concerned about justice and the real truth rather than mere boredom... Justice will out, even if it might be 'inconvenient' for those in the MoD more concerned with political expediency than the good name of the Chinook crew.

As for where the negligence lay? Pretty obviously with those allegedly managing airworthiness standards.

Anyway, all this information will be passed on to the next PM, so that he might know the truth rather than whatever biased rubbish will be fed to him by MoD $hit-filtering civil serpents.

Anyone who ever had the misfortune to serve under Wratten will know full well why he had the the nickname he did; it was, if anything, far too generous... Certainly not someone who would be likely to take an impartial view of an aircraft accident....

I'm still firmly of the opinion that any other verdict would have laid the MoD exposed to accusations of corporate homicide, the financial consequences of which would have been very expensive. So Wratten and Day were determined to find a way, any way of avoiding the truth coming into the public domain.

Last edited by BEagle; 25th Aug 2009 at 09:41.
BEagle is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 18:42   #5472 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 75
Posts: 635
JP

Quote:
it is not a case of 'down', but of sheer boredom with folk who cannot see where the negligence ocurred!
So true!

I'm still watching the children at play - but no more comments............
bast0n is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 19:00   #5473 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 71
Posts: 1,745
Dalek

Your #5529

The Officers on the BOI were experienced on the Chinook as either Pilots or Engineer.

Yourself?
cazatou is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 23:24   #5474 (permalink)

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 10,974
But neither Wratten nor Day were experienced on Chinooks.

Wratten was through and through fixed wing (like yourself, Cazatou/K52) and Day flew mainly Wessex; as far as I recall, he was never operational on Chinook, either Mk 1 or Mk 2.

Cazatou, kindly remind us again how much rotary wing experience you have?

It's a rhetorical question and I say remind again, but actually, you have never answered the question here, despite me asking you at least twice before, I think.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 00:31   #5475 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Perhaps the most valid criticism of the scenario I have put forward, that they were approaching a position where closing range was critical, is that such an experienced crew would not have committed themselves to such without visual confirmation.
And of course they did not plan to do so as I hope I will be able to explain below, briefly.
From the various snippets that are known, this was a planned flight that Flt Lt Tapper had claimed his crew had trained for “intensively” (if that was the word I recall from memory just now). They were certainly familiar with the area.
I recommend readers acquaint themselves with the section in the Boeing (Mitchell) Analysis regarding the elevation profile on the final leg.
One of the possible profiles is that they were just about level along that leg right up to the final flare, albeit coasting (power levels found and slowing).
For argument's sake and for demonstrating graphically the situation, let's say they were at 700 ft.
Using Google Earth, you can lay down tracks (“paths”). To get a track corresponding to 035 mag at the time, draw you paths at 028 (near enough for this illustration) – use the ruler to give the line at an angle and then draw your paths over that line.
Do a long line through the position of waypoint change and another through the middle of that LZ (I have posted these coords previously). The line through the position of waypoint change is the track they actually took up to the last manouevre; the line through the middle of the LZ is the track I believe they thought they were on.
First, zoom in and out and tilt your perspective to get a feel for the two tracks;
then use the flight simulator tool on Google Earth thus: using the prop light A/C model, fly the two tracks at about 130 kts-ish and at about 700 ft.
See the difference?
Through the LZ, the slope is progressive and the ridge is just about their height – just a little pull back or an easy peel off to the left down the slope to the sea does it, if they had overshot the LZ or just failed to make it out clearly enough – the slope would have been such that the RADALT alarm would have been a sufficient warning. Regard the mist (which hugged the ground and was not that deep) and ground as a single surface and you can see that this would have been quite reasonable – just like approaching a sand or heath ridge at about the level of the top.
However, you should notice that on the track they took, not only is the ground ahead higher but presented a broad front with no easy exit left and had an abrupt cliff (that would have been hidden by the mist) which they impacted in the event.
You can check the realism of the topography against OS maps or Shuttle radar data – I suggest that for this illustration, Google is good enough.
So, if they had been on the track through the LZ they would have been OK for a wave-off.
Now, there is no way, with the best planning in the world, a sensible aviator would rely upon being that accurately on track without there being a local point reference on that track.
Had they been reliant upon a local reference that was supposed to have been on that LZ but was ½ mile or so up the slope, with their having planned a safe approach on the right track, how could they be negligent? So you don't have to be jeopardising the case for clearing their names by digging deeper into the activity planned at the Mull – nothing to lose.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 08:52   #5476 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
Cazatou,

I have never claimed to be a Chinook expert. Whenever I need "expert" advice, I PM those on this site who obviously are.

I don't have any problem with the composition of the Board. I am just quoting Sir William, who obviously did. They had just failed to bring him the verdict he demanded.

I do have 224 hours helicopter time in my logbooks. How about you?
dalek is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 17:16   #5477 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

BEAgle. Your 5539, apart from the personal insults, you are now suggesting CORPORATE HOMICIDE!! I must add that item to my 5455, meanwhile, why do you not give us your real name so that the suggestion might be pursued in court? Chicken, are we? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 17:39   #5478 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 70
Posts: 375
John Purdey,

Beagle is correct. Wratten and Day did indeed lie to the HOL committee.
dalek is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 19:09   #5479 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 215
Quote:
John Purdey

BEAgle. Your 5539, apart from the personal insults, you are now suggesting CORPORATE HOMICIDE!! I must add that item to my 5455, meanwhile, why do you not give us your real name so that the suggestion might be pursued in court? Chicken, are we? JP
Even for you thats a bit low. As my father used to tell me... when someone resorts to name calling they have just proved they have lost the debate.
OmegaV6 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 20:12   #5480 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 928
I would suggest the last thing Wratten and Day want is for this matter to be aired in open court. Is anyone else claiming responsibility for the policies which allowed the indefensible premature release to service and feels libelled, JP?
Fitter2 is offline  
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 09:05.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1