Chinook HC3s - Why has it all gone so quiet?
And Nero played his fiddle like a bowman in the heat of battle
Faster than a fever
And he paid no heed to Standards, he moved against the flow
Like a salmon in a river
And those who were carried along by his flowing notes
Followed him all over
For Nero had the lust and the passion for promotion
Coursing through his fingers
Sorry VT, my sense of humour. With apologies to the late Davy Steele.
Faster than a fever
And he paid no heed to Standards, he moved against the flow
Like a salmon in a river
And those who were carried along by his flowing notes
Followed him all over
For Nero had the lust and the passion for promotion
Coursing through his fingers
Sorry VT, my sense of humour. With apologies to the late Davy Steele.
Thread Starter
So is it over-simplistic to suggest that we're about to spend £130 m or so to fit new avionics to eight cabs that don't actually need them, except to solve the problem that no-one has costed a theoretical and unquantifiable (but not indicated or suspected) risk with the current avionics?
That we are about to do so in the face of opinion from the TPs that the aircraft should enter service 'as is', and in the face of the opinion of blokes like Dr Strangecab that these risks could be 'prudently' accepted?
That this is, in part, due to a culture of risk aversion in the IPT which may be, in part, an inevitable function of the Mull incident?
Would we be refusing to give the HC2s an MAR on similar grounds if doing so did not entail grounding the entire fleet?
That we are about to do so in the face of opinion from the TPs that the aircraft should enter service 'as is', and in the face of the opinion of blokes like Dr Strangecab that these risks could be 'prudently' accepted?
That this is, in part, due to a culture of risk aversion in the IPT which may be, in part, an inevitable function of the Mull incident?
Would we be refusing to give the HC2s an MAR on similar grounds if doing so did not entail grounding the entire fleet?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Jackonicko, you're quite correct... the risk is indeed "unquantifiable".
How then do you suggest that the individual who underwrites that risk, ie ACAS, decides whether that risk is acceptable (or not) and that the ac merits a RTS?
Do you not accept that an accident where the cause is not positively determined, would have every man and his dog wanting somebody's head on a plate as "the ac were unsafe....BD said so years ago."
The ac can indeed be flown, however it was decided that introducing the 8 ac for an expected 40yrs required the problems to be addressed, hence 'Fix to Field'.
Hopefully, there should be more news in the New Year , and then everyone can start having a go at the programme schedule- You've got to think there are too many wannabe DPA employees on this forum judging from the comments above!
How then do you suggest that the individual who underwrites that risk, ie ACAS, decides whether that risk is acceptable (or not) and that the ac merits a RTS?
Do you not accept that an accident where the cause is not positively determined, would have every man and his dog wanting somebody's head on a plate as "the ac were unsafe....BD said so years ago."
The ac can indeed be flown, however it was decided that introducing the 8 ac for an expected 40yrs required the problems to be addressed, hence 'Fix to Field'.
Hopefully, there should be more news in the New Year , and then everyone can start having a go at the programme schedule- You've got to think there are too many wannabe DPA employees on this forum judging from the comments above!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Autorev
That would be all well and good if an 'unacceptable' recommendation from Boscomber always meant no RTS from ACAS.
But it doesn't. ACAS can, does, and has signed MAR's for aircraft deemed unacceptable by Boscombe Down.
If an aircraft can get an RTS/MAR without Boscombe's formal recommendation, then there is no automatic blanket answer, and it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
So why not the Chinook HC3?
That would be all well and good if an 'unacceptable' recommendation from Boscomber always meant no RTS from ACAS.
But it doesn't. ACAS can, does, and has signed MAR's for aircraft deemed unacceptable by Boscombe Down.
If an aircraft can get an RTS/MAR without Boscombe's formal recommendation, then there is no automatic blanket answer, and it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
So why not the Chinook HC3?
I'm not clear what might be exercising the minds of the IPT as regards the Mull incident. Surely this was exhaustively investigated by an RAF BOI, and then by two very senior RAF officers in the direct Chain of Command. Was it not their finding that the pilots had operated with Gross Negligence, and that this was the sole reason for the accident? Is it not the case that there was found no probable technical cause for this accident, and that the IPT, Group, Strike Command, MOD, Boeing and all other interested parties can therefore rest easy and sleep soundly knowing that blame has been laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the deceased guilty parties? Or is there now the most cynical double think going down here, whereby the innocent are deemed guilty and the guilty get off scot-free?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An unacceptable MAR recommendation from an Independent Safety Advisor needs some pretty good mitigation in order to receive a RTS. In this case such mitigation was not forthcoming. If anybody feels that they could provide such evidence that would satisfy the process by which the IPT is required to adhere, well they should submit the GEMS and be several pounds richer!
Service Deviation/ TCs or CLEs can and have been provided in the case of UORs where there have been unacceptable MAR comment, however that is not what is required for the Mk3 Chinook.
Remember also that it is not just one single Unacceptable comment but a host of them that is being addressed by Fix to Field.
Service Deviation/ TCs or CLEs can and have been provided in the case of UORs where there have been unacceptable MAR comment, however that is not what is required for the Mk3 Chinook.
Remember also that it is not just one single Unacceptable comment but a host of them that is being addressed by Fix to Field.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permit me to be naïve for just a moment - in counter to the accusations.
Would not the many clever people who work within our organisation have thought of all that before committing themselves to a circa £150M upgrade?
Or, as some appear to be suggesting, are we that crap at doing this sort of thing, that the only answer is to modify ourselves out of the frying pan? Note: F2F not only meets the airworthiness need, it also addresses a whole host of obsolescence and future issues. E.g – by setting the standard for a Thales Top Deck now, we could be shaping the future cockpit of the Mk2. (Notwithstanding CAAS).
Further, set against the backdrop of real funding pressure over the next few years, I’m sure that a good many senior people have already ‘been there’ and questioned the need for this expenditure especially given the lift shortfall.
Anyway, if Santa gave the MOD 20 Chinooks on 25 Dec, I would be guessing that we wouldn’t have the aircrew to fly them…..
Would not the many clever people who work within our organisation have thought of all that before committing themselves to a circa £150M upgrade?
Or, as some appear to be suggesting, are we that crap at doing this sort of thing, that the only answer is to modify ourselves out of the frying pan? Note: F2F not only meets the airworthiness need, it also addresses a whole host of obsolescence and future issues. E.g – by setting the standard for a Thales Top Deck now, we could be shaping the future cockpit of the Mk2. (Notwithstanding CAAS).
Further, set against the backdrop of real funding pressure over the next few years, I’m sure that a good many senior people have already ‘been there’ and questioned the need for this expenditure especially given the lift shortfall.
Anyway, if Santa gave the MOD 20 Chinooks on 25 Dec, I would be guessing that we wouldn’t have the aircrew to fly them…..
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to Jackanicko (and to test pilots!), test pilots are not the be all and end all in the world of flight test. Just beccause one or two tps MAY have said that the Chinook Mk 3 is safe, doesn't make it so; they are not necessarily the experts in system design or safety engineering for example. Most of the safety guys, engineers, FTEs, and indeed the IPT agree that the Mk 3 were potentially unsafe. Perhspas the risks are small, but equally, they could be huge. Many different tactics and philosophies were investigated to try and get the aircraft into service. The fact of the matter is that there were a number of areas where the risk was unquantifiable. In some areas the risk WAS quantifiable, and they were STILL assessed as unacceptable. I can only imagine the furore if a Mk 3 had crashed due to a software failure that resulted in misleading (or non existent) attitude information in instrument flight, or if the AFCS had suffered a dual lane runaway at low level, or if the transmission system had sufffered a catastrophic failure due to an unknown number of torque exceedances. And yes, perhaps some aircraft have entered service with unacceptable deficiciencies, but either mitigation was applied, or at least the MAR was signed off by someone who was aware of the risks. Neither of these options were possible on the Mk 3 (and yes, they were investigated).
P.S. I was NOT involved in ANY way with the Mk 3 procurement or evaluation!
P.S. I was NOT involved in ANY way with the Mk 3 procurement or evaluation!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resolution
I think that part of the rationale behind someone not just saying 'oh bu99er this, get on and fly them' is one of the central aspects of holding an airworthiness responsibility. If you get to the point of having the evidence to say 'stop doing x', either by limitation (and for the sake of politics I've seen some strict limitations) or by grounding aircraft, you actually have to have an idea of how you are going to get yourself out of that hole. This occurs for at least 2 reasons: 1. You're going to have to justify why you took such extreme action to someone with long trousers. 2. You have to know when you have got yourself to the point where you know (ie have the evidence) that the problem is resolved. So, for Mk 3, this resolution is F2F. It's pointless getting hung up on the history (whatever your viewpoint, it's happened), the focus needs to be on the resolution.
oh, t_s, "the MAR was signed off by someone who was aware of the risks" - you'd like to think so, but I know of at least one situation where this wasn't the case because of dilution of opinion, rather than acceptance of the truth, as things went up the chain. A bit like that story about a crock of **** becoming policy (wish I could remember it all).
sw
oh, t_s, "the MAR was signed off by someone who was aware of the risks" - you'd like to think so, but I know of at least one situation where this wasn't the case because of dilution of opinion, rather than acceptance of the truth, as things went up the chain. A bit like that story about a crock of **** becoming policy (wish I could remember it all).
sw
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times January 10, 2007
£100m to make Chinooks safe
Michael Evans
WHITEHALL The Ministry of Defence is to spend more than £100 million updating eight Chinook helicopters that have been grounded since they were bought from the United States for £252 million 12 years ago.
The helicopters, which are needed urgently in Iraq and Afghanistan, failed to meet strict airworthiness and safety specifications, which include a basic requirement that they should be able to fly in cloud. The MoD has decided that with such a shortage of helicopters, there is no alternative but to spend the money on making the Chinooks airworthy............
£100m to make Chinooks safe
Michael Evans
WHITEHALL The Ministry of Defence is to spend more than £100 million updating eight Chinook helicopters that have been grounded since they were bought from the United States for £252 million 12 years ago.
The helicopters, which are needed urgently in Iraq and Afghanistan, failed to meet strict airworthiness and safety specifications, which include a basic requirement that they should be able to fly in cloud. The MoD has decided that with such a shortage of helicopters, there is no alternative but to spend the money on making the Chinooks airworthy............
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair play to Lord Drayson, he got there in the end. Any news on the timescale? Can't imagine they will be ready in time for the next fighting season in May. I am sure Thales didn't work the MoD over the proverbial barrel on this one. Still, it will make a hell of a difference when they come on line.
Well done too, to BBC R4 and C4 News for highlighting the issue.
Well done too, to BBC R4 and C4 News for highlighting the issue.
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th Jan 2007 at 08:33.
You are a very good comedian. Do you do children's parties?