Talk about nit picking – well here goes:
Yep, slip of the fingers – if you read the earlier (perhaps less hurried) texts it would have been obvious what I meant – the QFE or whatever that gives zero at ground level on the strip/pad that you are intending to land on. You don’t need an explanation of its usefulness or the problems if you leave it set thus while on route do you? (Don’t worry Cazatou, tongue in cheek again.)
.
Now for specifically Cazatou’s cracks:
<<"They had turned towards it" - orographic wind effect?>>
This was addressed in the Boeing document “Analysis of Available Data” (Mitchel) that I recommended you all read some years ago – the author had it that the turn to the right was intentional and not attributable to drift as this turn was into the wind. If you did some chart work and used that document as a working template, you might begin to get a grasp of what happened here.
.
<<"They had started to slow down" - orographic wind effect?>>
Quite the opposite – again the above Boeing document. In it, the detailed analysis has it that the TAS had reduced by about 20 kts (from memory) but this was hidden by the increased wind as they approached the landmass so that the ground speed remained steady.
This is an important point – good analysis yielded a vital clue – the reduction in air speed over that last leg implied that they were not intending continuing route flying at their high cruise speed, nor that they were intending (that close in) to go over the Mull as to slow down while at high speed in clean air whilst staying level (over much of that last leg anyway) would have required just about the lowest power setting in their whole flight profile – not the best for emergencies. The power settings found were consistent with the engines (FADEC and other engine management controls, turbine lag, etc) not having had time to respond to the last minute pull-up – they were still matched at that low level confirming the result of Mitchel’s analysis re air speed.
.
<<"They had the right QFI for it" - see above post.>>
Why you of all people ask this – you were involved in this aspect in some detail some time ago. I can’t be bothered checking now but I thought it was you who pointed out that a regional QNH should be set whilst en route.
Perhaps I’m mistaken but I thought it was also you who gave an explanation of the RADALT alarm being on minimum – seem to recall it was something like “… for imminent landing in adverse conditions …” or similar.
So how come the following?:
<<"radalt alarm was on MIN" - Planned to Fly visually at low level in undulating terrain.>>
You’re not trying to undo those little bills, are you? Trying to get back into the flock?
They had two altimeters set consistent with a landing at an area just ahead , that they had just turned directly towards, that had been used before by Chinooks (Flt Lt Tapper himself had landed there on previous occasion(s)) – for which waypoint A was an obvious inner marker.
.
<<"Chinooks had landed there before" - My Father once had a moderate (for 1949) win on the Pools; it doesn't mean I will.>>
I think you have to be in it to win it – same with any game.
.
<<"They had a tactical callsign consistant with a SAR exercise" Are you sure you mean "Search and Rescue"?>>
I was told that it was consistent with an exercise of picking up a downed airman. What do you make of the call sign used?
.
And still zilch from anyone on ARS6 modules – must be super secret, eh?