ShyTorque
Indeed I am disappointed with your answers bearing in mind your experience:
What does << an RAF trained crew would be aware of the limitations of any fixed and published navaid, including DME. >> contribute to a general readers understanding that DME systems are a favourite of helo pilots – talk to civil operators (eg oil rigs, etc), read stuff, ask Navy – just the usual negative spin and obfuscation again from you. You are just countering the valid point that a DME reading is trusted as being very much more accurate and reliable than anything else, including the MK1 eyeball – by a big margin.
My point is, a false DME reading would really over-ride all else, both equipment and vision, when it came to closing in to land.
I think this point stands on its own without any ties to theories and is just plain useful to know.
The relevance here is that it would have been the only navaid type that they would have trusted to approach the coast rapidly in those conditions (where it was hard to judge range because of the ground mist) – even if waypoint A had not been deselected, Flt Lt Tapper would not have trusted the STANS to better than ½ mile after a sea crossing.
.
<< … re the crew being misled by a ground talkdown … The only agency a helicopter pilot would trust is an ATCO at an airfield, using a recognised approach.>>
So every infantry stick requiring extraction, CASEVAC, or re-supply requires an ATCO to accompany them? Suggest you get up to date with how these PLS sets are used in the field, by who, etc. – wouldn’t be much of a practical training demo with ATC staff assisting would it?
.
<< Regarding the possibility of a crew being misled by some sort of mobile DME … is just plain silly.>>
It’s the only way I can think of that accounts for them heading that way at that speed in those conditions (in the clear but towards mist covered slopes):
Had they decided to overfly the Mull, they knew near enough by the STANS how close in they were and the suggestion that the crash happened because they had “selected an inappropriate rate of climb” was silly;
Had they a problem with the a/c, they had ¾ of the compass to turn safely away from the high ground, or do something, anything, other than go straight on and to suggest that such a multiple jam had occurred, yet the Chinook continued on track flying for 20 seconds, then cleared itself is, well, ‘effin silly.
And silly or not, by exploring this line I have tried to do a reasonable analysis of the data that is available (to date, as far as I know, only Mr Mitchel of the Boeing Company has done likewise), asking questions, etc and in doing so have identified sufficient to suggest that they were engaging in something particular near the Mull, like an additional task, that has not been declared that may be relevant to the Campaign’s objective. You lot could have done a better more complete job a long time ago if you could think outside the box – you don’t have to accept the whole conspiracy theory to establish that there was something extra going on – and something extra not declared must make the original verdict unsound.
Of course, the strategy has been to not dig around – get their names cleared without exposing the MOD (and your Arm in particular) to serious embarrassment? The greatest disservice you could do to the crew, the passengers, and the British people is obstruct getting to the bottom of this because however unlikely, unpalatable, or “silly” views may be the implications of any kind of foul play having happened here are just too damn serious to ignore – if a parameter is being interpreted wrongly in your view then, please, explain what else it does mean – and how about reinforcing some true points instead of using false arguments to counter them – you know, the “nothing can be known” treatment.
If enough of the counter arguments (especially the early ones) had not been false, if enough information had been volunteered to understand, if so many things had not been misrepresented or omitted (just like at the inquiries), if just a few true points had been acknowledged and even reinforced, I could have been convinced that this line was wrong a long time ago – now you stalwarts of this thread (you know who you are) are just sounding boards.
.
My whole theory fits all that is known to date – if it is “silly”, I’d hate to think of the expletive that describes your efforts.