Low flying
I am returning to this thread after some while away. I have attempted to get up to speed but these days my memory won't retain vast amounts of info so my apologies if I've missed something
Tandemrotor says that it is entirely unexceptional to operate an SH below 240'. Of that I have no doubt. In our humble Siouxs or Skeeters (who remembers those?) we flew around the North German Plain below 10' in the 60's. However, there is surely a difference between tactical low-flying, flying in the face of a known or suspected (or exercise) threat to deliver troops to a possibly defended LZ and flying passengers between A and B.
I realise that there is no Public Transport category in the RAF but the aircraft in question was essentially conducting such a flight, moving civilians (are Int guys and gals civvies?) between peace-time locations.
When operating on the North Sea we were allowed to operate down to 250' and 900 metres for "short periods" according to to the ops manual (a legal document). Over land, because of the Rule forbidding flight within 500' of any person or building, the requirement was for met conditions to allow flight at 500' with 1000 metres visibility.
My first question is, do the RAF rules make any distinction with higher limits for non-tactical flying as in this case?
My second is for Shytorque. The BAH Chinook simulator (and the S61 sim) could certainly create "Engine runaway up" or "down" or "freeze" or several others. I think the instructors boast was that they could programme nine different engine malfunctions. Is there much point in flying a twin-engine/twin-pilot aircraft and then placing it (and I am not suggesting that this occurred in this case) in such a situation, non-tactical, that a defect on one engine or system for which there is a solution, is not containable or diffficult to contain due to met conditions in which the pilot has voluntarily placed himself.
My third is this. I realise that the aim of this campaign is to get the "gross negligence" verdict lifted. More power to your right arm!. Is it your belief that were this to be lifted then, in the light of no absolute proof, the crew would be found not responsible or is there another verdict possible?
Finally, I have been enormously impressed throughout this thread by the courtesy, seeking of knowledge, tenacity and tolerance shown by most contributors, Brian Dixon above all, even when arguing with someone who's opinion they completely oppose. I have been distinctly unimpressed by the lack of tolerance and rudeness shown by a few, I have been dismayed by the very few who descend to adolescent personal insult and unpleasantness and I shudder to think that one of our number, a professional pilot, could (outside standard crewroom insults) cast aspersions on anothers parentage.
My congratulations to all the movers and shakers in this campaign