Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 8th Apr 2006, 21:35
  #2001 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi everyone.
Firstly my apologies for my prolonged absence. Those of you who know me may have guessed it already – I broke my computer (again!!). However, all is now fixed – with no trace of any problem!

Cazatou, Would you accept an element of doubt? The AAIB stated that they could not confirm whether or not the control pallet had detached prior to the accident or not. Agreed, it may not have caused the crash, but would certainly have constituted a distraction in the cockpit. Would you agree? How can anyone be certain that that did not take place, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever? Obviously, I don't offer this as the only example, and it is just that - an example.

Also, does anyone have an opinion on this particular puzzle:

Sir John Day, when speaking at the House of Lords Select Committee said, “ For example I remember saying to Wing Commander, as he was then, Pulford, Group Captain now, and his team when they briefed me, "Surely the crew could have started to climb, lost control of the aircraft in cloud as a result of spatial disorientation or just bad instrument flying, and then crashed from that?" But the answer was "No"

So, according to Air Marshal Day's statement, spatial disorientation was definately not implicated in the accident, despite Air Marshal Day perhaps looking for something to take the heat off the pilots.

Interestingly, the BoI concluded, "...therefore, that Spatial Disorientation may have been a contributory factor in the accident."

Now, I would call that an element of doubt.

As I have said many times before, I'm not interested in point scoring with individuals. The whole purpose of the campaign is that there were (well documented on this thread) rules in place to protect deceased aircrew.

There are elements of doubt, therefore the rules were broken.

That is what this whole thing is about.

It's good to be back!

My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 00:40
  #2002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Brian
You asked for an opinion on the spatial disorientation “puzzle” – as I have put a view on this before I apologise for sounding like a stuck record but here goes:
From your post:
Sir John Day … saying … "Surely the crew could have started to climb, lost control of the aircraft in cloud as a result of spatial disorientation or just bad instrument flying, and then crashed from that?" But the answer was "No"
And:
Interestingly, the BoI concluded, "...therefore, that Spatial Disorientation may have been a contributory factor in the accident."
I put it to you that there were two degrees of spatial disorientation possible in this incident:
The first, as described by Sir John Day, would be the all round loss of references/ horizon, etc as a result in being fully immersed in cloud;
The second is, I believe, the loss of references in one direction (ahead/ right) which resulted in difficulty in judgment of distance off the Mull whose ground detail was obscured by ground hugging mist which merged into the cloud base – the horizon, sea surface, etc being clear to the left enabling level flight visually.
The former could be dismissed simply by considering the cloud base which, I believe, was above the crash level never mind their altitude in the final minutes of the approach.
The latter is a possible explanation for the crash – or a least a possible contributing factor in two scenarios:
1 If they had technical problems, they could have mistakenly thought that they still had some room to attend to the problem (as opposed to the immediacy of flying the a/c away from imminent danger – as discussed earlier on this thread – ie allowing distraction);
2 (Here I go again!) Had they been intending to get in close using some special reference that was wrong, their visual judgment may not have been good enough to alarm them to their actual proximity in time.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 09:21
  #2003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
Brian,

Wondered where you were, welcome back.

Where to start?

Right: the BOI is an administrative tool acting on behalf of the relevant C in C to collect and analyse all possible data regarding an accident or, if deemed necessary, an incident. In cases involving death then it is mandatory that the President of the BOI is at least of Wg Cdr rank. The composition and administration of the BOI is delegated to the relevant AOC.

The 'findings' of the President and the Board members are not writ in stone nor brought down from on high. The BOI passes through the relevant Group HQ where it is analysed and commented on by the relevant Group Staff (ie Air/Admin/Engineering etc).
Specialist comment, such as Medical opinion, would come from outside agencies. At the end of this process the AOC will append his comments and the BOI will be delivered to the CinC.

The same procedure will be followed at Command level and the CinC
will then append his narrative and decisions which may be at variance with those of the AOC.

The decision to apportion negligence in the final analysis is solely the prerogative of the CinC. It is he, and he alone, as the responsible Commander who makes the final decision.

The question of whether you, I or the "man in the Saloon Bar" believe the crew were negligent does not arise as far as these administrative procedures are concerned .

If, following a BOI, it is decided that Court Martial proceedings are justified then a Summary of Evidence will have to be taken. It is not permissable to utilise the evidence given on oath to a BOI as part of the Summary of Evidence.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 09:26
  #2004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
Shy Torque

Yes, follow Rule No 1 - "In any emergency the first consideration is to fly the aircraft".

Then, in the case of a 2 pilot flight deck crew, get the co -pilot to deal with it under your supervision.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 10:07
  #2005 (permalink)  
vincit veritas
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 35
Brian, Welcome Back!

Cazatou. Your reply in both capitals and bold type leads me even more firmly to the conclusion that you do not fully understand the meaning of the phrase "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", or its implications.
XM147 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 10:52
  #2006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Catazou
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANY FORM OF TECHNICAL FAULT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRASH.
No contributor to this thread has been able to PROVEa technical defect which contributed to, let alone caused, the Crash.
Neither is there conclusive evidence that a technical fault was not the cause of the crash and the FADEC theorists merely put it forward as a possibility, most of them are content that will never be provable. The whole point is that the evidence as to what actually transpired is very limited and speculation as to technical faults is no more, nor less speculative than Wratten and Day's speculation as to gross negligence.
The technical fault theorists to my recollection have never claimed that their theories are facts, merely doubts. Only Messrs Day and Wratten advance their speculation to the status of fact.
The only broken rule that matters in this case is the one which stated that deceased aircrew shall only be found grossly negligent in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 11:08
  #2007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
Je regret,

Obviously being here in France has adversely affected my Anglaze and the way wot it is writ.

I will try and spell it out again. The ONLY Authority for a finding of negligence for a STC Accident is the CinC STC.

The Board, Station Commander and the AOC will each express their own viewpoint in their findings and the AOC in C will, doubtless, take these into account in his own deliberations. For example; OC RAF Odiham concluded that there had been a failure in the duty of care.

In this particular case the views of the AOC and the CinC coincided and they were in "no doubt whatsover" that the 2 Pilots were "negligent to a gross degree". The final decision, however, rested solely with the C in C.

Most unusually, but not surprisingly in view of the high public profile of the accident, CAS also reviewed the BOI and the findings before it was released. He did not dissent from the views of the AOC and the AOC in C.

Last edited by cazatou; 9th Apr 2006 at 11:29.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 11:25
  #2008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
Neither of whose views were substantiated by evidence sufficient to support their verdict beyond any doubt whatsoever.
BEagle is online now  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 13:29
  #2009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
BEagle,

It would appear, however, that those three Very Senior Officers did not agree with your viewpoint.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 16:54
  #2010 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
Hi, caz

I have lost count of how many times people who have actually flown the Chinook have pointed out to you that the BOI were correct that the forecast weather conditions would have permitted a climb to Safety Altitude
Er... where?

SALT for the next leg was 5900ft, way above the 2500ft the crew would have understood to be the 4 Deg C isotherm. Even more locally, the SALT was 2800 ft.

What you, and all those who favour the "FADEC runaway" scenario, fail to take on board is that (if the scenario is correct) we are then dealing with a TRIPLE failure
I have NEVER favoured ANY scenario. I am willing to accept any outcome based on evidence which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. There is not, and never will be, such an outcome.

As you are adamant that there was no negligence
au contraire, mon ami

I am not adamant that there was no negligence at all, as any trawl of my past posts will show. I simply require the rules in force at the time to be followed, and that any negligence assumed, be proven to the required standard.

three Very Senior Officers did not agree with your viewpoint
And your point is?

That three people with the most to hide, hide from the truth is no reason to find their judgement infallible.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is NO PROOF that these guys were negligent, and no matter what you, or I, or Wratten, or Day, or Reid, or Hoon, or old uncle Tom Cobbly believe matters not one jot.

Without proof beyond ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that there was negligence, the benefit of any doubt rests with the pilots.

I take it that your reference to me as
ex-Naval Sea King Pilot AKA Ark Royal
is in some way supposed to diminish my credibility as a contributor to this debate.

Now, pray, tell me why I should hold you in any higher authority?
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 18:41
  #2011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Cazatou,

I admire your tenacity, however, you are unlikely to change anyone's view on this thread no matter how tireless your efforts. Some people live in a black and white world, where absolute certainty is required.

People are motivated by many things: love, respect, professionalism, guilt.
Twinact is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 19:24
  #2012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
BEAGLE,

Your Post 2020.

IN YOUR OPINION!!!

Your "OPINION" is not delivered in "HOLY WRIT" - it is your "OPINION"

I am sure that it may come as a surprise to you; BUT some people actually have the temerity to disagree with you.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 19:54
  #2013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
I feel I must congratulate you BEagle.

Never before have I had anything to do with someone who is ABSOLUTELY certain that he knows better than 1*/2*/3*/4*/5* Officers who reviewed this BOI.

You, obviously, were there at the interviews with key personnel and were able to form your own judgement as to the veracity of their statements.

You were then able to carry out your own independant investigation into this matter and reach your own conclusions which were, naturally, at variance with the Official version of events.

Have I got something wrong here?
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 20:21
  #2014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
Probably



.
BEagle is online now  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 20:35
  #2015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
But which Bit?

There are, after all, so many aspects in which you are the aknowledged "EXPERT".

In the 40+ years since I joined the RAF I have never come across someone who is such an "Expert" as you are - (or claim to be).

See the disclaimer regarding posters claims as regards their qualifications.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 20:43
  #2016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
Ark Royal,

Well, we have been in France for 4 years or so, I guess we have been telling you for 5 years.

I had a different handle then. Its a problem when you move Countries.

K 52

(Remember)?
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 20:49
  #2017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
Well, it looks as though I'm going to have to use the Walter button again...
BEagle is online now  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 21:27
  #2018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
BEagle,

Yes , guess you do.

After all, you wouldn't want an "A" cat Captain/Flight Instructor/Local Examiner/ Training Captain/ MG/IRE competing with you -- Would you?

Someone might notice some of the holes in your arguments.
cazatou is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2006, 22:19
  #2019 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,893
Exclamation

Originally Posted by cazatou
BEagle,
Yes , guess you do.
After all, you wouldn't want an "A" cat Captain/Flight Instructor/Local Examiner/ Training Captain/ MG/IRE competing with you -- Would you?
Someone might notice some of the holes in your arguments.
Well, K52 - how about someone with equal qualifications - but on Support Helicopters and with NI theatre experience? Yes, I have flown the Chinook, albeit it not being my primary type.

So, with all your fixed wing experience, please explain HOW exactly would YOU have flown the aircraft suffering from an engine runaway up in that situation? I think you really have no idea what this emergency entails.

I have suffered this type of emergency for real in a FADEC equipped helicopter, fortunately in far more benign and less demanding circumstances. Even so, it was very unpleasant. I shudder to think how things might have gone if I had been faced with it in marginal VMC conditions such as these two pilots were required to fly in. I have also seen the vagaries of digital engine control computers and how in-flight faults can occur and be indicated to the pilot yet fail to recur or register for maintenance purposes once the aircraft has had all electrical power removed.

I was also responsible for a helicopter simulator project for the RAF, where such things can be practised - they CANNOT be practised on the real aircraft. The two pilots may have had the opportunity to experience this extremely dangerous scenario in the simulator (although there was no Mk2 simulator). I am willing to be shown otherwise but I don't think this was ever researched or considered.

And how exactly would you deal with a detached flying controls pallet, in flight, possibly rendering control of the aircraft impossible?

Either one of those emergencies is potentially the reason for the accident, based on the previous history of the Mk2. The detached control pallet is as likely as any other, after all it was found detached in the wreckage and no-one has proved if it was a cause or symptom of the accident.

Also, there may (or may not) have been a cross-cockpit communication problem, which may have contributed to the accident, based on EVIDENCE found in the wreckage that the co-pilot's intercom had been selected to "Emergency", along with EVIDENCE that there had been a possible attempt to set the IFF to 7700. None of us know the answers and never will, because the only two people who did have a chance of knowing are dead.

As I said to you at least once before under your old username, K52, there are some of us who are willing to support a gross negligence charge against deceased former colleagues based on inconclusive evidence and those who aren't.

I fall into the latter category. You appear to have made up your mind to do so.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2006, 06:59
  #2020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,776
Come on, guys, please don't let this thread descend into a slanging match. Your are too worthy to allow it to happen...

FJJP
FJJP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.