PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 4th Jun 2010, 15:30
  #6450 (permalink)  
Tandemrotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arthur Rowe

As I suspected, we very largely agree.
As to eyewitness evidence, which do you think more likely; that the Chinook slowed down to 70 Knots then accelerated to almost Vne or that the yachtsman was mistaken in his estimate of its speed?
Having visited AAIB on a number of occasions, and 'sifted' the wreckage, and having also spoken to Mr Tony Cable at considerable length, I have absolutely no reason to suspect that the a/c impacted the ground at anything other than very high speed.

Indeed some senior officers even suggested the speed was so close to Vne that it is extraordinarily difficult to explain it within any normal regime!

On the other hand, I personally saw Mr Holbrook standing in the witness box at the FAI. He was an extremely persuasive witness! Everything he said was 'measured'. He is/was an instrument maker by trade. As an example, when he explained how he had assessed the height of ZD576, he said that he had used the height of the lighthouse, which he knew to be 300' above sea level, as a reference.

His assessment of speed was also referenced to the speed of Sea King helicopters with which he was very familiar. These are a very similar size in all respects to Chinooks.

Having personally heard his testimony, I have absolutely no doubts as to the accuracy of his evidence.

Perhaps just as importantly, as an experienced Chinook operator myself, the speed he describes ties in pretty well exactly with what I would expect in the weather conditions he outlines.

Indeed, speed just might be the most important anomaly in the entire body of evidence!

So how to explain the apparent discrepancy?

I have to say I cannot prove anything, but that does not mean the clues aren't available, and it certainly does not mean we should simply discard any evidence which does not 'fit' with some pre conceived (and unproven) notion of 'how it must have been'! Of course that is precisely what the reviewing officers felt able to do!

And, from your personal experience, would 140 Knots have been a dangerous speed in the circumstances?
From personal experience, it is extremely dangerous to impact terrain at 140kts. That does nothing to explain how it came to happen?

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 4th Jun 2010 at 15:51.
Tandemrotor is offline