PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
View Single Post
Old 13th Nov 2010, 14:36
  #6947 (permalink)  
Seldomfitforpurpose
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cazatou
dalek

Let me get this absolutely right. What you are saying is that Mr Murchie (a trained Met Observer) is wrong, Mrs Murchie is wrong, Mr Lamont (also a trained Met Observer) is wrong, Mrs Lamont is wrong, Mr Brocher is wrong, Mr Gresswell is wrong, Mr & Mrs Crabtree are wrong and finally that Mr Ellacott who was less than 100 metres from impact is wrong.

Mr Holbrook gave sworn signed evidence to the BOI that, when he was 2 NM SW of the Mull, as the Chinook flew past him the visibility was "1 NM limited by haze" and that the Chinook was " proceeding towards the mass of orographic cloud that obscured the Mull."

Less than 1 minute later the Chinook impacted close to Mr Ellacott who estimated the visibility at that time as "nine or ten feet maximum". The 2 Met Observers estimated the visibility as "15-20 metres at most" at the Lighthouse and "10 metres or less" on the road to the Lighthouse.

In fact, no less than nine eyewitnesses who were on the Mull gave evidence in respect of the weather conditions at the time of the crash. The Yachtsman was not aware of the crash until several hours later.

I would refer you to the Letter written by Sqn Ldr Donald Kinch (a very experienced Coastal Command Pilot) to the Daily Telegraph on 13 December 2000:-

" In light winds and high relative humidity, layers of fog and low cloud form adjacent to the Mull to obscure the high ground completely. There are occasions when a relatively calm sea and a grey sky of similar hue merge, so that in otherwise good visibility a pilot flying in accordance with Visual Flight Rules may be unaware that he is about to enter a fog/cloud bank."

The weather forecast should have alerted them to the possibility of this happening - indeed the Investigating Board specifically stated the forecast "would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre." I would have put that slightly differently and said " would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre."
Caz,

All good background info but can you tell us what the actual weather was at the crash site
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline