Aer Lingus Viscount accident--off Strumble
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAC Member
Would the IAC member (past or present) who is mentioned in the 2002 International Study as indicating that the truth could be found "closer to home", please make contact by PM.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Lingus Viscount Crash 24.3.68
Have you had a satisfactory explanation yet as to the cause of this crash?Last Thursday was the 40th.anniversary of the death of my brother Neill who died in this crash along with all 60 others on board.The official report of June 1970 into the accident had enough witnesses to conclude that the Viscount was involved in a mid-air collision with a manned military aircraft.Two neutral experts had absolutely no hesitation in concluding that fact.But to this day the Air Accident Investigation Unit in Dublin control everything to do with this crash-not even the European Court Of Human Rights or the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal can interfere.The AAIU have such a grip because the cover-up lies that protect Aer Lingus,the Irish Air Corps,the Fianna Fail Government and the like from the truth is vital.This is actually a criminal situation.
You should be able to get plenty of information about this crash on the internet if you wish-maybe you might get an idea of what I'm talking about.
You should be able to get plenty of information about this crash on the internet if you wish-maybe you might get an idea of what I'm talking about.
The official report of June 1970 into the accident had enough witnesses to conclude that the Viscount was involved in a mid-air collision with a manned military aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cobh Co Cork
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EIAOM....near miss scenario. 2002 Study
The 2002 Study looked at many scenarios which could have caused the accident to the Viscount except a "near miss"....or did I miss it?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cobh Co Cork
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EIAOM.....Flight reconstruction
The International Team had a difficult job....if they believed the Shannon ATC records then they would have had to conclude that the flight crew diverted from the flight plan and send two ficticious messages....."Level at 17000ft".. and... "By Bannow"... I suppose it would be totally unreal to accept that a passenger aircraft would divert from original flight plan without informing ATC and proceed on a "touristic flight" as mentioned in the Study. It is noted that the solicitor acting for the Operational Controller who was on duty on the 24th of March 1968 at Shannon wrote to Kevin Humphries, Chief Accident Investigator AAIU, on the 22nd January 2002 with the following comment:
"We have been instructed to state that our client rejects the contents of the draft report in so far as it contradicts his own statement and the certified transcripts of the tapes".
The Study concluded that EIAOM when over the Old Parish area interrupted its "climbing and dived into a spin" and appeared to be "attempting to go back to Cork". The Team of experts seemed to have missed that at this time a Herald aircraft was inbound to Cork and would have been flying approx 4000 ft lower then EIAOM.
"We have been instructed to state that our client rejects the contents of the draft report in so far as it contradicts his own statement and the certified transcripts of the tapes".
The Study concluded that EIAOM when over the Old Parish area interrupted its "climbing and dived into a spin" and appeared to be "attempting to go back to Cork". The Team of experts seemed to have missed that at this time a Herald aircraft was inbound to Cork and would have been flying approx 4000 ft lower then EIAOM.
Last edited by 383656; 4th Apr 2008 at 13:33. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight 712.....flight path.
It is suggested that the following scenario is more realistic then that concluded in the 200 Report
The aircraft was not in trouble shortly after take off as concluded by the International Team ...if she was in trouble a mayday signal would have been sent and she would have returned to Cork. A diversion from the flight path was the reason for levelling off at 9000ft and flying along the south coast of Count Waterford before turning in towards Waterford City. That aircraft sighted by Tory Hill so low that the grass was flattened was not the Viscount...it was the same aircraft that witnesses saw over Fethard with red wing tips and tail. What happened over South Wexford is difficult to tell but there is no doubt that there were two aircraft in close proximity in the area. The aircraft which did'nt crash got "home" safely and so far there is no record of it being where it was. But it is suggested that its identity may be ascertained at some date in the future .
The aircraft was not in trouble shortly after take off as concluded by the International Team ...if she was in trouble a mayday signal would have been sent and she would have returned to Cork. A diversion from the flight path was the reason for levelling off at 9000ft and flying along the south coast of Count Waterford before turning in towards Waterford City. That aircraft sighted by Tory Hill so low that the grass was flattened was not the Viscount...it was the same aircraft that witnesses saw over Fethard with red wing tips and tail. What happened over South Wexford is difficult to tell but there is no doubt that there were two aircraft in close proximity in the area. The aircraft which did'nt crash got "home" safely and so far there is no record of it being where it was. But it is suggested that its identity may be ascertained at some date in the future .
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cobh Co Cork
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Review of Irish and UK Files
The Review of Irish and U.K. Files carried out by Kevin Humphries and Graham Liddy of the AAIU and published in August 2000 contains the following:
"Strenuous efforts were made to trace the possibility of a second airborne object without success.
It should be noted that even if the presence of another flying object in the area were proven, there is still no evidence to show that it might have had any connection with the accident to EI-AOM"
Who made these strenuous efforts ?. Was it the team who investigated immediately after the crash or the International Team in 2002?
These "strenuous efforts" are not documented either in the initial 1970 Investigation or in the 2002 Study insofar as they relate to airborne activity from Irish Aiports other than from Cork and Baldonnell. The unsigned Baldonnell log sheet came with the following "health warning" issued by the International Team :
"It is noted that is an operational statement, and so, questionable"
Page 96 Volume 1 : Study Report
"Strenuous efforts were made to trace the possibility of a second airborne object without success.
It should be noted that even if the presence of another flying object in the area were proven, there is still no evidence to show that it might have had any connection with the accident to EI-AOM"
Who made these strenuous efforts ?. Was it the team who investigated immediately after the crash or the International Team in 2002?
These "strenuous efforts" are not documented either in the initial 1970 Investigation or in the 2002 Study insofar as they relate to airborne activity from Irish Aiports other than from Cork and Baldonnell. The unsigned Baldonnell log sheet came with the following "health warning" issued by the International Team :
"It is noted that is an operational statement, and so, questionable"
Page 96 Volume 1 : Study Report
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it would be totally unreal to accept that a passenger aircraft would divert from original flight plan without informing ATC and proceed on a "touristic flight" as mentioned in the Study.
The mid-air collision between a United Airlines DC-7 and a TWA Constellation over the Grand Canyon in Arizona years ago was attributed to one of the airplanes going on a sight-seeing tour, thus diviating from the flight plan (and ATC approved) route.
Not good policy
I suppose it would be totally unreal to accept that a passenger aircraft would divert from original flight plan without informing ATC and proceed on a "touristic flight" as mentioned in the Study.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I've posted one or two bits from my father's files before, but came across a letter he wrote in 1998 to the MoD in response to their questions. My father died four years ago, so I have taken it upon myself to release this letter, which I think could be found under the FOI. I have removed the names referred to, as I happen to know most of them. I don't know if they are still alive, but I thought it best to withhold them at this stage. I doubt if any of them have more information.
Those who subscribe to the missile theory should read the penultimate paragraph.
The letter is here
Those who subscribe to the missile theory should read the penultimate paragraph.
The letter is here
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is quite fascinating. It's amazing how this mystery continues to run and run. Airborne artist, your Dad refer to an Irish Air Corps Dakota in his letter. The IAC never had Dakotas, but he was an naval officer not a plane spotter. I assume that refers to the IAC Dove which interestingly had dayglo patches on it's wings and tail. I can't help feeling that this is the aircraft many saw that day when the Viscount went down and confused their timings. This may have led to the idea of the drone or military aircraft colliding with the Viscount. We all know how unreliable witnesses are. We only have to evidence the recent Citation accident to see that.
What always put me off the idea of the mid air with a military aircraft was the fact that it was a Sunday. The IAC in particular didn't operate on a Sunday back then. The only possible IAC aircraft with the performance capability to be in the same place as a Viscount were the Vampire T55's, which incidentally also had dayglo wing tips. It is hard to believe that a cover up exists in the Air Corps in relation to a Vampire flying that day. The IAC was very small indeed and this is a small country. To maintain a cover up of that size would be quite difficult.
One other theory, I read about is even more tenuous. It suggests a Fouga Magister collided with the Viscount. But the Air Corps didn't have Fougas at the time, although Potez who built the Magister were actually building an aircraft factory at Baldonnel at the time. So the suggestion is that a visiting Fouga from France collided with the Viscount. But the complete lack of evidence for a visit by Fouga Magister visitor to Baldonnel snookers that theory too. Although a cover up by the French authorities may be more plausible.
I'm afraid I tend to believe the more prosaic idea that there was a failure which led to a loss of pitch control. Like the Indonesian aircraft, the crew heroically managed to keep it flying for a while but lost the battle in the end.
All this talk of mid-airs distracts from that.
What always put me off the idea of the mid air with a military aircraft was the fact that it was a Sunday. The IAC in particular didn't operate on a Sunday back then. The only possible IAC aircraft with the performance capability to be in the same place as a Viscount were the Vampire T55's, which incidentally also had dayglo wing tips. It is hard to believe that a cover up exists in the Air Corps in relation to a Vampire flying that day. The IAC was very small indeed and this is a small country. To maintain a cover up of that size would be quite difficult.
One other theory, I read about is even more tenuous. It suggests a Fouga Magister collided with the Viscount. But the Air Corps didn't have Fougas at the time, although Potez who built the Magister were actually building an aircraft factory at Baldonnel at the time. So the suggestion is that a visiting Fouga from France collided with the Viscount. But the complete lack of evidence for a visit by Fouga Magister visitor to Baldonnel snookers that theory too. Although a cover up by the French authorities may be more plausible.
I'm afraid I tend to believe the more prosaic idea that there was a failure which led to a loss of pitch control. Like the Indonesian aircraft, the crew heroically managed to keep it flying for a while but lost the battle in the end.
All this talk of mid-airs distracts from that.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DH106
One of the most extraordinary conclusions reached by the International Team in their 2002 study is that the Viscount "crossing at 9 to 10,000ft.suddenly interrupted its climbing and dived into a spin".This conclusion was reached mainly on the evidence of a new witness who was "standing...near his home in Scart (North Youghal).He saw an aircraft,and identified it as a Viscount".The aircraft was flying at an altitude between FL 90 and FL 100 and would have been approx.13 miles distant from the witness.It is suggested that even with a powerful set of binoculars it would have been impossible to see an aircraft not to mind identify it as a Viscount.The 2002 Study then claimed that after the Viscount spun or spiralled,almost vertically,she flew for 30 minutes without broadcasting a mayday message!!!Rubbish,total rubbish.
(I hereby challenge AAIU incidentally to either endorse this precise part of the 2002 Study or to confirm its total and utter disagreement with these farcical conclusions).
Thank you DH106 for your technical contributions...they are most helpful as my search for the truth continues.My brother Neill died in this crash.
(I hereby challenge AAIU incidentally to either endorse this precise part of the 2002 Study or to confirm its total and utter disagreement with these farcical conclusions).
Thank you DH106 for your technical contributions...they are most helpful as my search for the truth continues.My brother Neill died in this crash.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Airborne artist, your Dad refer to an Irish Air Corps Dakota in his letter. The IAC never had Dakotas, but he was an naval officer not a plane spotter. I assume that refers to the IAC Dove
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cobh Co Cork
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Review of Irish and UK Files
Alan McCormick
The authors of the 2000 review pointed out that ;
"had the St. Phelim developed problems immediately after take off, it is unlikely that it would have continued on its way to London but rather would have returned and landed in Cork".
Your point is valid concerning identifying an aircraft 13 miles away. This distance is the equivalent of observing a commercial transatlanic airliner directly overhead flying at twice the normal altitude. At normal altitude, around 30 to 35 thousand ft, an observer would have difficulty knowing that there was an aircraft except for the presence of the contrail.
The authors of the 2000 review pointed out that ;
"had the St. Phelim developed problems immediately after take off, it is unlikely that it would have continued on its way to London but rather would have returned and landed in Cork".
Your point is valid concerning identifying an aircraft 13 miles away. This distance is the equivalent of observing a commercial transatlanic airliner directly overhead flying at twice the normal altitude. At normal altitude, around 30 to 35 thousand ft, an observer would have difficulty knowing that there was an aircraft except for the presence of the contrail.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viscount Training
Would the fitting of a FDR in EI-AOM have recorded if the aircraft was over stressed in the course of training a week before the crash ?.
Were any extra maintenance schedules implemented by airlines who carried out such unusual altitude manoeuvres ?.
If an aircraft had to carry out an actual emergency such as those envisaged in the course of training, would the aircraft have to undergo an immediate inspection ?.
Were any extra maintenance schedules implemented by airlines who carried out such unusual altitude manoeuvres ?.
If an aircraft had to carry out an actual emergency such as those envisaged in the course of training, would the aircraft have to undergo an immediate inspection ?.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greenlaw, Scottish Borders
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating thread. I note from the latest book by Mike Reynolds that he seems to think that someday a piece of wreckage will be found washed ashore or on terra firma which will 'solve' this mystery. Who knows what the future will hold?
In respect of the possible activity of UK-based anti-aircraft units, there are numerous mentions on record, including in the Irish Parliament and from journalists, to the effect that "it was well known in Territorial Army circles that they had had some involvement in this accident".
The UK government has always denied this, but (a) they would, wouldn't they, or (b) such denials might well be quite sincere and just in line with their own records.
Does anyone have contacts who might have definite knowledge in this regard to either confirm the probability of such involvement or alternatively to expose such rumours as mere bullsh!t, bravado or Chinese whispers?
Any info gratefully received - please PM.
2 s
The UK government has always denied this, but (a) they would, wouldn't they, or (b) such denials might well be quite sincere and just in line with their own records.
Does anyone have contacts who might have definite knowledge in this regard to either confirm the probability of such involvement or alternatively to expose such rumours as mere bullsh!t, bravado or Chinese whispers?
Any info gratefully received - please PM.
2 s
In respect of the possible activity of UK-based anti-aircraft units, there are numerous mentions on record, including in the Irish Parliament and from journalists, to the effect that "it was well known in Territorial Army circles that they had had some involvement in this accident".
The UK government has always denied this, but (a) they would, wouldn't they, or (b) such denials might well be quite sincere and just in line with their own records.
The UK government has always denied this, but (a) they would, wouldn't they, or (b) such denials might well be quite sincere and just in line with their own records.
Last edited by Liffy 1M; 8th Feb 2009 at 18:46.
Indeed - I would not disagree. But insofar as some people have claimed to have evidence, what I am saying is let's hear it, let's name names and have chapter and verse. After all, a journalist ought to be fairly certain of his facts before publishing as should a member of parliament before making public statements. If they cannot do this or have to admit that they were misled, that would equally be more satisfactory than at present.
It is not just a traditional conspiracy theory - there were these claims, there were witness reports of another aircraft with red wingtips and noises like a sonic boom. The original, formal, accident report said that it was inescapable that there was another aircraft in the area. This was then totally discounted in the 2002 Report by the so-called International Team because they interpreted evidence to suit that conclusion. They made inaccurate interpretations of parts of the communications transcripts and said that other parts must be wrong - just in order to support their claim that all the witnesses saw just the one aircraft, the Viscount. That was either incompetent or a whitewash.
It is not just a traditional conspiracy theory - there were these claims, there were witness reports of another aircraft with red wingtips and noises like a sonic boom. The original, formal, accident report said that it was inescapable that there was another aircraft in the area. This was then totally discounted in the 2002 Report by the so-called International Team because they interpreted evidence to suit that conclusion. They made inaccurate interpretations of parts of the communications transcripts and said that other parts must be wrong - just in order to support their claim that all the witnesses saw just the one aircraft, the Viscount. That was either incompetent or a whitewash.