Aer Lingus Viscount accident--off Strumble

[2 sheds]

Reynolds book was totally supportive of the Study carried out by the international team published in 2001 (sic - 2002?).

Well, it would be - as he was employed as an assistant in the production of the report and was named in it as a contributor! However, from the evidence of his own book, it would seem as if he exceeded his brief and meddled in aspects of which he had only a little knowledge and even less understanding, specifically the interpretation of information from the ATC transcripts. What is amazing is that the principal investigators either did not check his work, or accepted it without question, or indeed originated some of that part of the report themselves - the analysis is ill-informed and incompetent.

They try to suggest that there were anomalies in the rate of climb and yet failed to take into account the aerodrome elevation at Cork, the prevailing pressure and the tolerance of timings. They suggest a mystery about the ETA passed by the crew for STU and that it was wrong - and yet a few simple calculations will show that it was precise. They make an elementary error (applying a correction the wrong way!) in addressing the time difference indicted by the Shannon controller. They suggest that the Shannon transcript must be wrong but cannot explain that accusation. They describe the Viscount crew as navigating by using DME at Strumble - there was none. Their chart of the Viscount's track from CRK includes the fundamental error of being plotted in degrees (true) instead of (magnetic).

It is suggested that a forensic examination of this Study would conclude that it cannot stand up to close scrutiny.

Too right! In fact, correct analysis of the transcripts only serves to reinforce their mutual accuracy. Therefore, and not surprisingly, they totally contradict the Team's assertion about the early "significant event" and enforced descent. Their alleged scenario that the witnesses were only referring to the Viscount is seen to be nonsense, as is the resultant conclusion that no other aircraft was in the area.

This is not to deduce that another aeroplane or missile was involved in contributing to the accident, but that the Team's logic in totally discounting that possibility is utterly false and based on incompetent analysis.

2 s