PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 17th Jun 2009, 00:54
  #4792 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,908

I did ask for information ref. the info given to Boeing by the AAIB, I believe in post #4720 about waypoints. Anyone able to direct me or give an answer,please ? Syc

While this may not answer your question, I believe the overriding factor -re the "simulation" is that Boeing later admitted using a non-FADEC Chinook in their modeling, thus invalidating it at a stroke. I can't recall if this applied to all Boeing's work; perhaps others can confirm.

This doesn't mean all the results were wrong, but does taint them somewhat. Despite this, MoD cherry picked the information to suit their verdict, much as they did with the similarly tainted Racal SuperTANS report. You will recall that, while Racal restricted themselves (correctly) to confirming the presence of navigation inputs (Rad Alt, Doppler etc), MoD took a huge leap and claimed this as evidence that not only were they present, but they were (a) accurate and (b) meant the entire Nav System was both serviceable and accurate. (But then contradicted themselves by admitting the Rad Alt had a design defect which resulted in incorrect height output).

This is laughably inept thinking. But having pointed it out to MoD, it became something far more sinister when they refused to admit their error.
Such tainted evidence simply cannot (or should not) be used to convict anyone, when the criteria is beyond all doubt whatsoever.

And, while I don't like to post on piloting issues, the dismissal of the possibility of a control jam adversely affecting all axes needs addressing. (Recent JP post).

I seem to recall a pilot stating that, because of the complexity of the tandemrotor design, a single failure (e.g. spring detaching, as happened the previous week on ZD576) can cause serious problems in all axes. Forgive me for speculating here but if, because of known causes and effects, one has no proper control over the aircraft, does this not introduce some doubt as to why the aircraft ploughed onwards in the final seconds? I know there are other factors, but it is the doubt that is important. Very significant doubt.

But MoD don't want to go there, as it immediately calls into question their application of their own Regulations. That particular question was answered long ago, and will be again when H-C reports.
tucumseh is offline