PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
View Single Post
Old 8th Feb 2002, 01:36
  #195 (permalink)  
ShyTorque

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,587
Received 443 Likes on 235 Posts
Post

I am so glad that finally the bull$hit behind the vindictive and spiteful AM's over-ruling of their own Board of Inquiry has come seeping to the surface.

In my opinion, the day that Mr. Wratten really lost it was the day he tried to discredit the president of the BoI (a rotary man through and through, I know, I served with him) by stating that he was a relatively inexperienced officer, etc. If so, why was he appointed to head such a high profile board?

Mr. Wratten, albeit of senior rank, of NIL helicopter experience or qualification, that was...

There are many questions still unanswered. This was, after all, if ever there was one, an accident precipitated by poor management and it still smells of whitewash. The Mk2 appears to have bypassed the normal MOD rules for release to service (for political reasons?) and those responsible for this are surely responsible, at least in part, for this tragic accident and the large loss of life that resulted.

The last person to witness the fated aircraft disagreed that it was flying fast, I understand he thought it may have been involved in a SAR due to its slow speed. I believe he also disputed that the aircraft was flying in IMC and he has complained bitterly that his evidence was not recorded correctly.

As far as FADEC glitches go, I have experienced a number of them on two very different types of aircraft. More often than not FADEC faults do seem to disappear without trace once the battery is switched off and then on. My most recent occurred on the ground, with the engine reacting independently of any pilot input and could not be shut down by the normal method. Quite alarming, even on the ground.

There was EVIDENCE in the wreckage that there may have been an intercom failure at some late stage. This MAY have been critical, bearing in mind that the non-handling pilot was responsible for navigation and there had been previously reported inaccuracies of the TANS nav system on this particular airframe, giving cross-track position errors. Using the evidence gathered it is possible to come up with a number of alternative scenarios, none of them involving negligence on the part of the crew.

Then again, there MAY have been negligence on the part of the crew. Knowing them both and having taught one of them to fly, I doubt it. SF crews did not just get there by default, they were chosen by ability. But then I can say that because I am not looking out to save my own career....

<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
ShyTorque is offline