Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Tecumseh
Thanks; You say 'The DECU and/or its installation design were patently NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. To subsequently “pass” it is the clearest evidence imaginable of a breakdown in the airworthiness process'.
That is very interesting indeed. Just so that a non-engineer might be clear about this, are we saying that the Chinook was therefore not airworthy? What, if anything, was subsequently done to rectify the situation?
With all good wishes JP
Thanks; You say 'The DECU and/or its installation design were patently NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. To subsequently “pass” it is the clearest evidence imaginable of a breakdown in the airworthiness process'.
That is very interesting indeed. Just so that a non-engineer might be clear about this, are we saying that the Chinook was therefore not airworthy? What, if anything, was subsequently done to rectify the situation?
With all good wishes JP
John P
The problem with the DECU is well documented in ZD 576 papers, in the public domain. Reading these, it is my (some would say informed) opinion that the installation should not have been approved. Certainly, I would never sign-off on something like this, nor would I approve a Concession or Production Permit. And I cannot imagine for one minute Experimental Flight Approval being sought or granted for an aircraft in which a (quite important) installation has to be checked for integrity, in flight, every x minutes. So, an important question is "when was the problem identified?".
You ask if the aircraft was airworthy. Clearly, someone thought so, as CAR (now MAR) was signed, albeit with caveats. And it was subsequently accepted into Service. CAR is essentially a safety process. Certain equipment need not work to specification, as long as the installation design (including the quality of design and production) is safe. It is my opinion that anything related to the DECU would not be exempt. Others, more senior to me, seemingly disagree.
You ask what was done to rectify the situation. I don’t know. It is an excellent question. I could tell you what should have happened, but first I’d need to know if the aircraft design was Under Contractor or Ministry Control at the time of discovery, and what contractual conditions were in place. Either way, as the aircraft would seem to have entered Service with this known problem (my assumption based on the existance of the “workaround”) there must be an audit trail from those instructions back to the discovery. Which may or may not include aforesaid Concession or Permit. In simple terms, if it was discovered while UCC, then the Design Authority would raise an Engineering Change Proposal, or similar, and could fix it without MoD approval being necessary. If UMC, then a formal modification or Change would be proposed. The classification of the mod would initially be up to the Chairman of the Aircraft Mods Committee – having held an equivalent post I’d say Class A/1, A/0 or A/-. The definition of such mods makes interesting reading;
“These modifications are essential for safety, the absence of which would involve… grounding (or) the imposition of severe limitations on the use of aircraft or equipment…. They must be embodied irrespective of the delay in delivery, scrap or downtime involved”.
Do you think the DECU problem meets any of those criteria, for example, severe limitations? I’d call having to inspect a component for integrity, in flight, pretty severe. Some may argue for a Class B (“severe operational limitations or seriously reduced maintenance efficiency”) but even then the mod must be embodied “forthwith”.
Just my opinion. I’m afraid I don’t know the mindset of, or pressures applied to, those involved. I do know that the application of what I describe is extremely variable. I have quoted a Defence Standard which exists for one reason – to ensure aircraft, weapons and equipment safety. That some are permitted to ignore these procedures is a potentially fatal weakness in the MoD’s application of airworthiness. And they don’t like being reminded.
I hope this helps.
The problem with the DECU is well documented in ZD 576 papers, in the public domain. Reading these, it is my (some would say informed) opinion that the installation should not have been approved. Certainly, I would never sign-off on something like this, nor would I approve a Concession or Production Permit. And I cannot imagine for one minute Experimental Flight Approval being sought or granted for an aircraft in which a (quite important) installation has to be checked for integrity, in flight, every x minutes. So, an important question is "when was the problem identified?".
You ask if the aircraft was airworthy. Clearly, someone thought so, as CAR (now MAR) was signed, albeit with caveats. And it was subsequently accepted into Service. CAR is essentially a safety process. Certain equipment need not work to specification, as long as the installation design (including the quality of design and production) is safe. It is my opinion that anything related to the DECU would not be exempt. Others, more senior to me, seemingly disagree.
You ask what was done to rectify the situation. I don’t know. It is an excellent question. I could tell you what should have happened, but first I’d need to know if the aircraft design was Under Contractor or Ministry Control at the time of discovery, and what contractual conditions were in place. Either way, as the aircraft would seem to have entered Service with this known problem (my assumption based on the existance of the “workaround”) there must be an audit trail from those instructions back to the discovery. Which may or may not include aforesaid Concession or Permit. In simple terms, if it was discovered while UCC, then the Design Authority would raise an Engineering Change Proposal, or similar, and could fix it without MoD approval being necessary. If UMC, then a formal modification or Change would be proposed. The classification of the mod would initially be up to the Chairman of the Aircraft Mods Committee – having held an equivalent post I’d say Class A/1, A/0 or A/-. The definition of such mods makes interesting reading;
“These modifications are essential for safety, the absence of which would involve… grounding (or) the imposition of severe limitations on the use of aircraft or equipment…. They must be embodied irrespective of the delay in delivery, scrap or downtime involved”.
Do you think the DECU problem meets any of those criteria, for example, severe limitations? I’d call having to inspect a component for integrity, in flight, pretty severe. Some may argue for a Class B (“severe operational limitations or seriously reduced maintenance efficiency”) but even then the mod must be embodied “forthwith”.
Just my opinion. I’m afraid I don’t know the mindset of, or pressures applied to, those involved. I do know that the application of what I describe is extremely variable. I have quoted a Defence Standard which exists for one reason – to ensure aircraft, weapons and equipment safety. That some are permitted to ignore these procedures is a potentially fatal weakness in the MoD’s application of airworthiness. And they don’t like being reminded.
I hope this helps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Tecumseh. Again, many thanks for such a well-informed reply. I am still not clear (and perhaps no-one else is) as to what happened to rectify such an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Has there been a follow-up, and if so with what result? Also, I am not quite clear what this all might have to do with the unfortunate Chinook meeting a granite hillside.
Meadowbank. Sorry, of course I meant myself!
regards JP
Meadowbank. Sorry, of course I meant myself!
regards JP
John P
“I am not quite clear what this all might have to do with the unfortunate Chinook meeting a granite hillside”.
I think the point is that, for the purposes of this thread/campaign, we do not have to know precisely what caused the crash. The criterion set by the MoD’s own rules was absolutely no doubt whatsoever – a far greater test than reasonable doubt (a Select Committee’s words, not mine). It is for MoD to prove guilt, not others to prove innocence.
Given that many believe the MoD have breached their own rules in this respect, if one could demonstrate reasonable doubt, then in an honest world the verdict would overturned. I believe being able to demonstrate weakness or failure of process and procedure as to the basic airworthiness of the aircraft constitutes reasonable doubt; especially when one can point to the MoD’s own admissions. Please note. The issues I discuss are not supposition or theories, they are facts acknowledged by the MoD, which they choose to ignore. Yet they are quite content to base their guilty verdicts on supposition and theories.
That smacks of having something to hide.
“I am not quite clear what this all might have to do with the unfortunate Chinook meeting a granite hillside”.
I think the point is that, for the purposes of this thread/campaign, we do not have to know precisely what caused the crash. The criterion set by the MoD’s own rules was absolutely no doubt whatsoever – a far greater test than reasonable doubt (a Select Committee’s words, not mine). It is for MoD to prove guilt, not others to prove innocence.
Given that many believe the MoD have breached their own rules in this respect, if one could demonstrate reasonable doubt, then in an honest world the verdict would overturned. I believe being able to demonstrate weakness or failure of process and procedure as to the basic airworthiness of the aircraft constitutes reasonable doubt; especially when one can point to the MoD’s own admissions. Please note. The issues I discuss are not supposition or theories, they are facts acknowledged by the MoD, which they choose to ignore. Yet they are quite content to base their guilty verdicts on supposition and theories.
That smacks of having something to hide.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To John Purdey
So you too think that the government/MOD have something to hide. As a non-member of both, please do not keep us all in suspense, and tell us what you think it might be? I only ask because I have an inquiring mind.
Having spent some time working at Boscombe Down on MAR recommendations (albeit not on the Chinook), it is apparent to me that the flight test organisation, whether at BD, Farnborough or wherever, had sufficient reservations about the airworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 at the time of the accident, not only to withold Service Release but also for the test pilots to refuse to fly the aircraft. It appears that the MoD, despite knowing of these concerns, decided to press the aircraft into service, apparently under a Service Deviation. I'm certainly not an expert on the nuances of this (though other posters on this thread are) but, for the example that you are seeking, how about the following scenario:
Test pilots, scientists and engineers at Boscombe Down (or wherever) decided that there was insufficient evidence to provide clearance of one or more specific safety-critical items in the Chinook Mk2. As the RAF has limited assets, someone who is empowered to do so within the RAF/MoD decides to stick their neck out and authorise the entry into Service of an aircraft that has not met the normal criteria for Release to Service. ZD576 then crashes with no obvious cause. The Board of Inquiry decides that the cause cannot be established but that, on the balance of probability, aircrew error is the most likely cause. Keen to deflect attention from the, with hindsight, unwise decision to press ahead with the early introduction into servce of the HC2, it is politically expedient to blame the two junior officers who were piloting the aircraft. Although much vitriol has been directed at Air Marshals Day and Wratten, it is entirely possible that they were carrying out instructions from the MoD - the organisation that is, even now, ignoring the findings of what amounts to the highest appeal court in UK, the House of Lords. Perhaps the refusal to change the verdicts is to protect the reputation of a senior MoD official, perhaps that of Day & Wratten, or perhaps it's been done to save the Ministry additional millions in compensation claims.
What is surely undeniable, though, is that no-one knows, beyond any doubt whatsoever, what happened to ZD576. Indeed, even Wratten, in his statement of 15 June 2002, writes that it was his task "to reach my own conclusions". His statement also includes the rather damning (in relation to his conclusion) statement that "without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact". The fact that he then goes on to, indeed, reach his own conclusions, dismissing all of the suggested possible technical malfunctions that may explain why the crew didn't carry out the obvious and planned 7-degree turn to the left, speaks volumes. It is tempting to blame Wratten's supreme arrogance (as displayed so embarrassingly during his infamous Paxman interview) for ignoring the hypotheses of others in favour of his own (infalliable of course) analysis but I suggest that it is also possible that he may have been following orders from above, whether within the military or political arena.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank
You wrote of Wratten << … but I suggest that it is also possible that he may have been following orders from above, whether within the military or political arena.>>.
Perhaps one of you lot could grab him by the short and curlies, look straight into his watering eyes, and ask him straight out – the consequences of his conclusion surely demand directness and openess with the interested parties.
You wrote of Wratten << … but I suggest that it is also possible that he may have been following orders from above, whether within the military or political arena.>>.
Perhaps one of you lot could grab him by the short and curlies, look straight into his watering eyes, and ask him straight out – the consequences of his conclusion surely demand directness and openess with the interested parties.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Meadowbank. Many thanks for a most interesting post. You say 'Although much vitriol has been directed at Air Marshals Day and Wratten, it is entirely possible that they were carrying out instructions from the MoD' If that is indeed the case, then they could not have been acting in a vacuum, and surely someone following this thread would have known what was going on? Can they be persuaded to speak up? Assuming of course that you are right. Regards. JP
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to JP
I have no idea whether or not I'm right, unlike their airships, who are apparently convinced that they are right, despite there being no unequivocable evidence to support a case that is supposed to be proved 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'!
However, if I did happen to be right, I sincerely hope that there is someone out there in Pprune land who could spill the beans. If they're out there and don't want to risk speaking out themselves, I (or Brian Dixon) would be delighted to receive a Private Message giving details though, frankly, there wouldn't have to be many individuals in this 'Chain of Command' and the only people 'in the know' would be likely to be those who were actually part of that same chain. You have already mentioned that you are not from the MoD so, for clarification, although senior officers, Ministers and senior civil servants have Staff Officers, PAs and the like (the sort of people that I think you are alluding to), they would certainly have been left out of the loop in this kind of scenario. Instructions would have been passed on verbally behind an individual's closed office door, with no written record made.
Like I believe you imply, I think it most unlikely that someone will step forward to speak out, but that lack of disclosure would not prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that such a scenario does (or did) not exist. Hmmm, interesting parallel.
Regards,
MB
However, if I did happen to be right, I sincerely hope that there is someone out there in Pprune land who could spill the beans. If they're out there and don't want to risk speaking out themselves, I (or Brian Dixon) would be delighted to receive a Private Message giving details though, frankly, there wouldn't have to be many individuals in this 'Chain of Command' and the only people 'in the know' would be likely to be those who were actually part of that same chain. You have already mentioned that you are not from the MoD so, for clarification, although senior officers, Ministers and senior civil servants have Staff Officers, PAs and the like (the sort of people that I think you are alluding to), they would certainly have been left out of the loop in this kind of scenario. Instructions would have been passed on verbally behind an individual's closed office door, with no written record made.
Like I believe you imply, I think it most unlikely that someone will step forward to speak out, but that lack of disclosure would not prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that such a scenario does (or did) not exist. Hmmm, interesting parallel.
Regards,
MB
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that someone at that high a level would be vulnerable to identification as a whistle-blower, who would put his/her career in jeapordy; paperwork up there tends to be highly controlled and the audit trail easy to follow. Only if a minion (like a secretary, or a subordinate officer), with access to the papers and photocopier, had a conscience, would such revelations emerge...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't seen this posted here before, but is this where Walter is coming fom:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07..._plane_caused/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07..._plane_caused/
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to Twinact
Quite possibly, or at least similarly bizarre reports. To put this one to bed: even if there is an aircraft like Aurora and it does fly at speeds as high as Mach 8, such speeds would not be achievable at anywhere near the Chinook's operating altitude. Further, if, as the article states, Machrahanish might be being used as an operating base for the Aurora, the aircraft would certainly need to have slowed down to somewhere near landing speed by the time it was flying over the Mull area. Finally, if the shockwave from this aircraft were severe enough to throw a Chinook operating at low altitude from the sky, the Aurora's existence would certainly no longer be a secret as it would be causing all sorts of mayhem over a very wide area.
For a more credible long-odds outsider, I would go for a meteorite striking one or both of the pilots, but there are already sufficient other possible technical defects that cast sufficient doubt to render the negligence finding 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' completely untenable.
For a more credible long-odds outsider, I would go for a meteorite striking one or both of the pilots, but there are already sufficient other possible technical defects that cast sufficient doubt to render the negligence finding 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' completely untenable.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twinact
Associating someone holding a different viewpoint with UFO type rubbish is pretty pathetic – can’t you handle rational debate?
.
As concisely as I can, I will describe my viewpoint as it stands now:
.
The PLS equipment was fitted as a Service Mod to some of the first HC2s on delivery.
It seems a reasonable assumption that ZD576 could have had it fitted.
The PLS is a useful tool to support helos and is especially useful in spec ops and CSAR.
The system is in itself very interesting and one has to wonder why it is not worthy of debate – even on this thread.
Current equivalent systems have enhancements such that there should be no harm in talking about the system from the mid 90s – much is in the public domain.
How interesting would it be to the average reader of this site to hear when it was first procured, fitted, trialed, etc and when it was first used in various theatres?
.
And yet when I first mentioned this system on this thread the suggestion of its very existence was ridiculed. Why?
.
.
Doubtless, some of the team on board could have been interested in a demo of the new system.
An opportunity existed for an ad hoc trial in that the ground equipment was available on the Mull at the time (the SEALS who were stationed at Mac had it almost down to a man).
In its normal use the equipment is accurate and trustworthy – helo pilots would be inclined to trust the equipment especially with the ground side operator talking them in – an overhead pass would impress all.
However, if such a demo was being undertaken, it would only take the ground side operator to be, say, ½ mile further up the hill than expected (whether by human error or by malice) to explain everything that is known, or that can be reasonably assumed from the available data, about this crash.
.
Perhaps the embarrassment of such a debacle has made even the discussion of such a system a taboo subject?
Associating someone holding a different viewpoint with UFO type rubbish is pretty pathetic – can’t you handle rational debate?
.
As concisely as I can, I will describe my viewpoint as it stands now:
.
The PLS equipment was fitted as a Service Mod to some of the first HC2s on delivery.
It seems a reasonable assumption that ZD576 could have had it fitted.
The PLS is a useful tool to support helos and is especially useful in spec ops and CSAR.
The system is in itself very interesting and one has to wonder why it is not worthy of debate – even on this thread.
Current equivalent systems have enhancements such that there should be no harm in talking about the system from the mid 90s – much is in the public domain.
How interesting would it be to the average reader of this site to hear when it was first procured, fitted, trialed, etc and when it was first used in various theatres?
.
And yet when I first mentioned this system on this thread the suggestion of its very existence was ridiculed. Why?
.
.
Doubtless, some of the team on board could have been interested in a demo of the new system.
An opportunity existed for an ad hoc trial in that the ground equipment was available on the Mull at the time (the SEALS who were stationed at Mac had it almost down to a man).
In its normal use the equipment is accurate and trustworthy – helo pilots would be inclined to trust the equipment especially with the ground side operator talking them in – an overhead pass would impress all.
However, if such a demo was being undertaken, it would only take the ground side operator to be, say, ½ mile further up the hill than expected (whether by human error or by malice) to explain everything that is known, or that can be reasonably assumed from the available data, about this crash.
.
Perhaps the embarrassment of such a debacle has made even the discussion of such a system a taboo subject?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
I personally don't subscibe to the conspiricy theory. However,you know what you ask is impossible. If the two AM's did overrule the Board for reasons of National Security then anyone comimg forward would be in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
I believe it comes down to simple economics. Two deceased junior officers have limited estates and are therefore not worth suing.
If however an un - airwothy aircraft was rushed into service and this was found to have "possibly contributed" to the crash, then MOD/HMG would be subject to some serious litigation.
Oh, and someone far more seniors neck would be on the line.
I personally don't subscibe to the conspiricy theory. However,you know what you ask is impossible. If the two AM's did overrule the Board for reasons of National Security then anyone comimg forward would be in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
I believe it comes down to simple economics. Two deceased junior officers have limited estates and are therefore not worth suing.
If however an un - airwothy aircraft was rushed into service and this was found to have "possibly contributed" to the crash, then MOD/HMG would be subject to some serious litigation.
Oh, and someone far more seniors neck would be on the line.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Dalek.
You may not subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but others clearly do (I do not think they have thought through what they are suggesting, but we can leave that till later). A whistle-blower could remain anonymous, could he not? ; so let's give it a few days JP
You may not subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but others clearly do (I do not think they have thought through what they are suggesting, but we can leave that till later). A whistle-blower could remain anonymous, could he not? ; so let's give it a few days JP
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think they have thought through what they are suggesting, but we can leave that till later
Dalek makes some good points.
As a result of my post, I have now received a very interesting PM, implicating a couple of individuals, which I shall pursue with selected others. For the moment, as I'm sure you will understand, this will not be shared on Pprune. I would still prefer to avoid the term 'Conspiracy Theory', simply because of the perceived connection with anorak-clad little-green-men-believers. Perhaps a fellow Ppruner could suggest an alternative term?
John Purdey and Dalek
Regarding “whistle blowing” and “possibly contributing”.
I have always wondered about this so-called “whistle blowers” Act. Is it whistle blowing to share or publish information, a policy decision, ruling or practice that is available under Freedom of Information, or can be gleaned from various F of I disclosures? I understand a national daily even has a hotline for readers to reveal information like this. I have read some astonishing examples of candour released in this way.
If someone knew of an act or common practice via F of I which “possibly contributed” to the accident but could not be proven to have caused it, then revealing that may not whistle blowing. Does anyone know more about this?
Tandemrotor makes a valid point. The principle of being judge and jury in your own case defies natural justice. But independent inquiries also took place and recommended no blame be attached to the pilots. Did both have exactly the same information and evidence available to them? If not, the difference presumably contains the explanation for the difference of opinion. And if not, why not? A combination of events which would encourage conspiracy theories.
Regarding “whistle blowing” and “possibly contributing”.
I have always wondered about this so-called “whistle blowers” Act. Is it whistle blowing to share or publish information, a policy decision, ruling or practice that is available under Freedom of Information, or can be gleaned from various F of I disclosures? I understand a national daily even has a hotline for readers to reveal information like this. I have read some astonishing examples of candour released in this way.
If someone knew of an act or common practice via F of I which “possibly contributed” to the accident but could not be proven to have caused it, then revealing that may not whistle blowing. Does anyone know more about this?
Tandemrotor makes a valid point. The principle of being judge and jury in your own case defies natural justice. But independent inquiries also took place and recommended no blame be attached to the pilots. Did both have exactly the same information and evidence available to them? If not, the difference presumably contains the explanation for the difference of opinion. And if not, why not? A combination of events which would encourage conspiracy theories.