Regarding GM’s post - you “regulars” are missing the point that this is how it appears to many at first sight:
If you do the chart work and get a grasp of just how close in the waypoint change was made; then follow the argument that the turn, at that point, to 035M appears deliberate (as per handling pilots course selector) and maintained until a few seconds before impact then the view expressed by GM is to be expected by anyone having a first look at this crash – for one, they evidently had some degree of control at waypoint change and that was already unnecessarily close for this “ferry” flight as I have argued recently and GM makes the general point of the dangers in these areas under those conditions.
Without good reason to go in there (I think they did have one) it does not look good just relying upon the case for the a/c being unreliable.
.
While you castigate him for not having reviewed the numerous posts by others more knowledgeable, seemingly expecting every visitor to this thread to follow the party whip, many of the arguments you use for the alleged unreliability of the a/c do seem unfounded, unconvincing or exaggerated and thus leave any inquiring mind unsatisfied; for an extreme example ExGrunt’s last post::
<<… A little while later it is found upside down in a ditch by the Z bend, with the brakes and steering disconnected and the engine management system burnt out. It subsequently turns out that driving instructors are refusing to drive this type of vehicle and that the owners are suing the manufacturers of the engine management system because it is not fit for purpose.>>
Not quite that clear cut was it?
.
And there was that comment from PPRuNe Pop re the credentials of contributors on this thread:
<<very senior officers, engineers, Chinooks pilots and people who are well able to offer definitive views on the subject>>
I have no doubt of the quality in terms of experience and skill of many of the “regular” contributors and, despite the tone of some of their replies in my direction, I do respect this; further, I am sure that there are many others behind the scenes who advise the Campaign Group; however, I find it very frustrating that they appear to have gagged themselves by following the apparent strategy of not digging any deeper in certain areas in case of either compromising the idea of “nothing can be proven” or embarrassing unnecessarily the MOD (by “unnecessarily” I mean something that is considered sensitive, to say defence, that you may not thus far consider having any bearing on the crash and therefore, understandably perhaps, do not think necessary to make public).
As an example for what more could be established, let us look at one parameter that pilots of any Mk of Chinook could have addressed as could the assemblage of experience mentioned above – it is something that could on its own contribute to an understanding of their approach to the critical region – it is the power setting as found:
(From the AAIB report)
fuel flows for the two units at the point of electrical power supply loss, 251 and 254lb/hr (114 & 115 kg/hr);
N1 values close to 93% and 91% for No 1 and No 2 respectively (70% torque);
“Internal settings found after the accident confirmed correct operation for most of the HMA elements and suggested matched power demands for both engines at the time of impact, at an intermediate level that possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre immediately pre-impact.”
A couple of questions arise:
1. People like me could get quite the wrong idea from grappling with the descriptions available of such engine systems – I thought that to get them so closely matched required a finite time in a steady state to allow either the FADEC or the pilot (via beep trim) to get them so close.
Is this generally the case? If so, is the AAIB correct regarding the intermediate level (that it possibly reflected conditions during changing power demands resulting from a dynamic manoeuvre …)? What exactly do they mean by “intermediate” in this case?
.
2. Are these figures consistent with slowing down? If not, are they typical for any recognised state (bearing in mind their alt, all up weight, etc)?
.
It is difficult for a lay person to interpret the performance charts for Chinooks and so the expert answers would be welcomed by anyone trying to analyse this crash for whatever reason.
.
The above is just one example of something that could have been explored more deeply by now. I personally do not believe that these pilots would have made simple mistakes of airmanship and so further examination should not weaken the case that the group is making. On one hand, the exploration of the meaning of several (thus far) apparently anomalous parameters could result in certain “conspiracy theories” being brought to a close; on the other hand, a hitherto undisclosed activity could be exposed – either way, no harm to your cause – and possibly a path to real justice.