Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain fade
Sorry just missed your last post where you wrote
<< If you ask me, and this is the real point, It was the folk in the back who got the raw deal here. not the pilots. And I don't see 110 pages of hand wringing about them.>>
I totally agree with this comment with the slight modification to read “… not JUST the pilots …”.
To me, establishing the actual cause of this crash is an important step in getting justice for the team in the event of foul play – in this case, the pilots get cleared incidentally.
Sorry just missed your last post where you wrote
<< If you ask me, and this is the real point, It was the folk in the back who got the raw deal here. not the pilots. And I don't see 110 pages of hand wringing about them.>>
I totally agree with this comment with the slight modification to read “… not JUST the pilots …”.
To me, establishing the actual cause of this crash is an important step in getting justice for the team in the event of foul play – in this case, the pilots get cleared incidentally.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REFINEMENTS/CORRECTIONS
.
On reflection, it is disappointing how, on several occasions, I have pointed at something but have been slightly wrong in the detail and yet did not receive positive correction where the point turned out to be near enough – missing the opportunity to advance understanding. I am sure that regular readers of this thread will recognize this as I present the updates.
.
I have long suggested that the a/c was referring to a navaid/ beacon that misled them – just look at how the following parameters fit the hypothetical scenario of an ad hoc trial/ demo of the new beaut ARS-6 and PRC 112 combo simulating an RV with an ejected pilot or an SF soldier:
(I have used input from others more conversant with ATC procedures and a procedural document for NATO CSAR of the mid 90s.)
.
CALLSIGN
ZD576 was using the callsign F4J40.
The use of a tactical callsign suggests something like QRA and so would be appropriate for an a/c looking for, say, an ejected pilot who was using a PLB (eg the PRC 112) - as there is no record of an actual ejection in the area at the time, this would have to have been an exercise.
.
INTERCOM SELECTION
The handling pilot’s intercom was found to be on UHF Guard (emergency)
From a 1998 doc,
Joint Pub 3-50.21
Chap IV Sec. 3. Search and Locating Methods
“Electronic Search. Initial radio contact with isolated personnel usually
occurs on an emergency (Guard) frequency …”
and the PRC system is UHF.
The same section goes on to describe rather well how the system operates and in particular that “…the AN/ARS-6 computes slant range and direction to the radio being queried.”.
.
SQUAWK
ZD576 had the code 7760 selected.
From the same doc as above, regarding a helo in CSAR:
“Situational awareness can be further enhanced by succinct communications and code word procedural guidance, the proper display of transponder IFF mode 1 or 3 squawks …”
Thus, if such an exercise was going on, an SSR code other than 7000 would have been expected.
Whether 7760 had specific meaning (in other systems 7760 can have the meaning “Ground Transponders Tests/ Trials”) or it was an innocuous choice from the domestic code allocation (at the time this was the practice where confusion was unlikely as there was a shortage of codes for specific tasks) is a moot point – this scenario gives a possible explanation for the code not being 7000 that is more reasonable than a frenzied attempt to select emergency or that impact caused the movement of the selectors.
Further, they said in one call that they were doing something but unfortunately the verb was not distinct enough to be recognised in isolation – possibly, this could be recognised by someone familiar with code words.
.
On reflection, it is disappointing how, on several occasions, I have pointed at something but have been slightly wrong in the detail and yet did not receive positive correction where the point turned out to be near enough – missing the opportunity to advance understanding. I am sure that regular readers of this thread will recognize this as I present the updates.
.
I have long suggested that the a/c was referring to a navaid/ beacon that misled them – just look at how the following parameters fit the hypothetical scenario of an ad hoc trial/ demo of the new beaut ARS-6 and PRC 112 combo simulating an RV with an ejected pilot or an SF soldier:
(I have used input from others more conversant with ATC procedures and a procedural document for NATO CSAR of the mid 90s.)
.
CALLSIGN
ZD576 was using the callsign F4J40.
The use of a tactical callsign suggests something like QRA and so would be appropriate for an a/c looking for, say, an ejected pilot who was using a PLB (eg the PRC 112) - as there is no record of an actual ejection in the area at the time, this would have to have been an exercise.
.
INTERCOM SELECTION
The handling pilot’s intercom was found to be on UHF Guard (emergency)
From a 1998 doc,
Joint Pub 3-50.21
Chap IV Sec. 3. Search and Locating Methods
“Electronic Search. Initial radio contact with isolated personnel usually
occurs on an emergency (Guard) frequency …”
and the PRC system is UHF.
The same section goes on to describe rather well how the system operates and in particular that “…the AN/ARS-6 computes slant range and direction to the radio being queried.”.
.
SQUAWK
ZD576 had the code 7760 selected.
From the same doc as above, regarding a helo in CSAR:
“Situational awareness can be further enhanced by succinct communications and code word procedural guidance, the proper display of transponder IFF mode 1 or 3 squawks …”
Thus, if such an exercise was going on, an SSR code other than 7000 would have been expected.
Whether 7760 had specific meaning (in other systems 7760 can have the meaning “Ground Transponders Tests/ Trials”) or it was an innocuous choice from the domestic code allocation (at the time this was the practice where confusion was unlikely as there was a shortage of codes for specific tasks) is a moot point – this scenario gives a possible explanation for the code not being 7000 that is more reasonable than a frenzied attempt to select emergency or that impact caused the movement of the selectors.
Further, they said in one call that they were doing something but unfortunately the verb was not distinct enough to be recognised in isolation – possibly, this could be recognised by someone familiar with code words.
Oh lord - Wally is off to the land of his little green Seals and their magic teleport beacons again....
Chaps - no-one except the deceased pilots knows what happened beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.
Which is the whole point.
Chaps - no-one except the deceased pilots knows what happened beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.
Which is the whole point.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
I've done the letdown to Macrahanish many times. Also done the sector from Islay on days when you had to do it low level as to do it IFR meant you'd never get in due to the high MDA (caused by the Mull I expect)
For sure you see all sorts of wx out there and the hill only being IMC with VFR conditions near to it is not unusual. Like that on the day in question was it?
VFR into IMC into the ground.
Tandem. No charge to you.
I've done the letdown to Macrahanish many times. Also done the sector from Islay on days when you had to do it low level as to do it IFR meant you'd never get in due to the high MDA (caused by the Mull I expect)
For sure you see all sorts of wx out there and the hill only being IMC with VFR conditions near to it is not unusual. Like that on the day in question was it?
VFR into IMC into the ground.
Tandem. No charge to you.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain....Fade....Ex, is there somthing in this combination that we should know about
You appear to have missed the simplicity of this case by failing to read this thread from start to finish. No one in here is denying you a right to your theory or for that matter any one else a right to theirs, even Walter who appears to be as mad as a box of frogs is entitled to his
The answer is as clear as the nose on your face and Beagle has almost got it right, but as an ex Shiny bod he would naturally discount anything aft of the flight deck as having any insight. There are four people who KNOW what happened on that fateful day and they all tagically lost their lives in the crash. Their is not a living soul on this planet who KNOWS what happened because there is not a shred of CONCLUSIVE evidence to tell us what ACTUALLY took place.
So I ask you now to reconsider, not your theory, but your stance with regards to the outcome of the BOI. How could they have possibly found the pilots guilty in this manner when there is nothing factual to support that decision.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
You appear to have missed the simplicity of this case by failing to read this thread from start to finish. No one in here is denying you a right to your theory or for that matter any one else a right to theirs, even Walter who appears to be as mad as a box of frogs is entitled to his
The answer is as clear as the nose on your face and Beagle has almost got it right, but as an ex Shiny bod he would naturally discount anything aft of the flight deck as having any insight. There are four people who KNOW what happened on that fateful day and they all tagically lost their lives in the crash. Their is not a living soul on this planet who KNOWS what happened because there is not a shred of CONCLUSIVE evidence to tell us what ACTUALLY took place.
So I ask you now to reconsider, not your theory, but your stance with regards to the outcome of the BOI. How could they have possibly found the pilots guilty in this manner when there is nothing factual to support that decision.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Fair point. I concede that the rear crew might have realised what had happened; however, the pilots might have been too busy trying to wrestle with the thing to let them know what the hell was happening.
Unless of course, the rear crew were busy with mad Wally's teleport beacon thing....
Unless of course, the rear crew were busy with mad Wally's teleport beacon thing....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beag's I don't want to get into a p@@@ing contest but unless you have operated in the rotary fleet you will have no concept of how the "crew" thing works. There is no "might" about it, they would have known, end of story.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Cobblers!
It is impossible in any aircraft, regardless of type, for all crew members to know at all times everything which is going on. There will inevitably be some occasions when the pilot is unable to communicate to those not on the flight deck due to work level - whether physical or mental.
I am not an 'ex-shiny' bod; far from it. And I do accept that you lot in the muddy world do more than make the tea. But there is no need to assume that only your closed little world has any inkling of your activities.
Anway, enough of this. No-one still alive knows exactly what happened, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. And that is the end of it.
It is impossible in any aircraft, regardless of type, for all crew members to know at all times everything which is going on. There will inevitably be some occasions when the pilot is unable to communicate to those not on the flight deck due to work level - whether physical or mental.
I am not an 'ex-shiny' bod; far from it. And I do accept that you lot in the muddy world do more than make the tea. But there is no need to assume that only your closed little world has any inkling of your activities.
Anway, enough of this. No-one still alive knows exactly what happened, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. And that is the end of it.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade, you are not the only ex-Loganair bod here. Unlike your average civilian transport pilot, the Chinook crew were actually trained to operate low-level VFR. I spent a lot of my formative years in and around Kintyre; I have walked over it, flown over it and sailed around it. I make no claim to know what happened that day and no amount of "local knowledge" without an actual understanding of the SH role will convince me otherwise.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Brain Fade,
welcome to the thread. Apologies for not posting that welcome sooner.
Whilst I have no issue with you having an opposing view to that of mine, I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on.
I agree that the end result was the impact with the Mull, with the subsequent terrible loss of life, but how can you discount the well documented problems with the Chinook HC2 fleet at the time of the accident? How can you discount the BoI findings that the following factors could have contributed to the accident (either singly, or in combination): Human Factors; Crew Duty Considerations; Spatial Disorientation; Visual Illusion; Weather; Rad Alt Procedures or Distractions.
There are simply too many unanswered questions to satisfy the burden of proof required at the time of the accident - that of proof with Absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Now, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Chinook HC2 ZD576 hit the Mull of Kintyre at approximately 6.00pm on 2 June 1994. However, what I, nor anyone else for that matter, can know - with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, is why, or the circumstances leading up to the impact.
The Campaign is not saying that the Air Marshals are wrong. Nor are we saying that they are right. What we are saying is that there is insufficient available factual evidence to support their speculated opinion, to the burden of proof required, and therefore the verdict should be removed.
The only accurate conclusion should be that the most probable cause is [insert theory here], but quite honestly we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
welcome to the thread. Apologies for not posting that welcome sooner.
Whilst I have no issue with you having an opposing view to that of mine, I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on.
I agree that the end result was the impact with the Mull, with the subsequent terrible loss of life, but how can you discount the well documented problems with the Chinook HC2 fleet at the time of the accident? How can you discount the BoI findings that the following factors could have contributed to the accident (either singly, or in combination): Human Factors; Crew Duty Considerations; Spatial Disorientation; Visual Illusion; Weather; Rad Alt Procedures or Distractions.
There are simply too many unanswered questions to satisfy the burden of proof required at the time of the accident - that of proof with Absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Now, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Chinook HC2 ZD576 hit the Mull of Kintyre at approximately 6.00pm on 2 June 1994. However, what I, nor anyone else for that matter, can know - with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, is why, or the circumstances leading up to the impact.
The Campaign is not saying that the Air Marshals are wrong. Nor are we saying that they are right. What we are saying is that there is insufficient available factual evidence to support their speculated opinion, to the burden of proof required, and therefore the verdict should be removed.
The only accurate conclusion should be that the most probable cause is [insert theory here], but quite honestly we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Thanks for your post. No one (plainly including me) KNOWS what happened.
I'm no AAIB bod so please don't read too much authority into my opinion.
Just seems to me it was the classic VFR into IMC accident so often re run all over aviation. Had it been a 'lesser' a/c and cargo than ZD576 methinks the fuss would have died down long ago. Also frankly I feel more sympathy for the pax-who were certainly guilty of nowt, than for the pilots who probably CFIT'd it.
I've no new info to add to your campaign. I simply saw this thread and was struck by it's length and by how much thought was given to all sorts of possible scenarios other than the most plausible one. Also by how keen posters seemed to be to excuse the pilots while giving much less bandwith to the pax.
As far as the charge of gross negligence goes, I understand what's been said re 'slightest doubt' etc. Acknowledged.
I still think they CFIT'd it tho, especially as it was plainly doing a big pullup, at a good speed, when it hit and given wx in that area can be treacherous.
Surely you don't think it would have turned out the same on a CAVOK day?
It is a shame they didn't have a proper IFR helo, but surely that angle was lost when they accepted the task.
All I'm saying is what loads of folk think but are too shy to post.
Happy landings!
ps I wouldn't rule out any of the factors you mentioned.
Roghead. Frankly, I agree.
Thanks for your post. No one (plainly including me) KNOWS what happened.
I'm no AAIB bod so please don't read too much authority into my opinion.
Just seems to me it was the classic VFR into IMC accident so often re run all over aviation. Had it been a 'lesser' a/c and cargo than ZD576 methinks the fuss would have died down long ago. Also frankly I feel more sympathy for the pax-who were certainly guilty of nowt, than for the pilots who probably CFIT'd it.
I've no new info to add to your campaign. I simply saw this thread and was struck by it's length and by how much thought was given to all sorts of possible scenarios other than the most plausible one. Also by how keen posters seemed to be to excuse the pilots while giving much less bandwith to the pax.
As far as the charge of gross negligence goes, I understand what's been said re 'slightest doubt' etc. Acknowledged.
I still think they CFIT'd it tho, especially as it was plainly doing a big pullup, at a good speed, when it hit and given wx in that area can be treacherous.
Surely you don't think it would have turned out the same on a CAVOK day?
It is a shame they didn't have a proper IFR helo, but surely that angle was lost when they accepted the task.
All I'm saying is what loads of folk think but are too shy to post.
Happy landings!
ps I wouldn't rule out any of the factors you mentioned.
Roghead. Frankly, I agree.
Last edited by brain fade; 26th May 2006 at 20:05.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Fade
Welcome to the debate.
Not quite the standard of proof required, I'm afraid. It is, of course, possible that you are right, but it is also possible that something else caused the accident, including at least 3 possibilities that could have created the accident with the aircraft flying in gin-clear VMC. The whole point behind the campaign is that no-one knows what happened and it is therefore nothing less than immoral that the two pilots have been found 'grossly negligent' 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'.
Welcome to the debate.
seems to me
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Brain Fade.
That is entirely the point of the Campaign.
CFIT is just one possibility as to why events unfolded as they did. No one is denying that, and I respect the fact that you have chosen that as your preferred option.
However, and I apologise for being repetitive, the burden of proof is one of absolutely no doubt whatsoever - and that has yet to be achieved.
My best,
Brian
(Nice anagram of 'Brian Deaf' by the way - It's often been said that I won't listen to alternative theories!
)
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thanks for your post. No one (plainly including me) KNOWS what happened.
CFIT is just one possibility as to why events unfolded as they did. No one is denying that, and I respect the fact that you have chosen that as your preferred option.
However, and I apologise for being repetitive, the burden of proof is one of absolutely no doubt whatsoever - and that has yet to be achieved.
My best,
Brian
(Nice anagram of 'Brian Deaf' by the way - It's often been said that I won't listen to alternative theories!
)"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Well, good luck with the campaign anyway. I agree it's harsh to say they were definately guilty of 'gross negligence' when there are other possibilities, remote or otherwise.
More likely just guilty of......well, I said it earlier.
And there but for the Grace of God go us all.
Thank you for some considered posts.
BF
Well, good luck with the campaign anyway. I agree it's harsh to say they were definately guilty of 'gross negligence' when there are other possibilities, remote or otherwise.
More likely just guilty of......well, I said it earlier.
And there but for the Grace of God go us all.
Thank you for some considered posts.
BF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no AAIB bod so please don't read too much authority into my opinion.
We'll obviously bear in mind that you clearly don't know too much detail of the case either.
Thanks anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
You wrote:
<<It's not even as though we don't have intimate knowledge of the entire subject. Or totally relevant experience of this exact type of rotary aircraft, it's introduction into service, it's failings, the operation, the crew, or the area, the subsequent investigations, the BoI, and inquiries.>>
If I may draw your attention to some of our earlier debates, some of you had not even understood the fundamental difference between TANS and the SuperTANS navigation system as used by ZD576; the description of the wx on that leg to the Mull was ambiguous; their intentions re the route in that vicinity was not stated clearly; the final control positions were not acknowledged as being appropriate for a large twin rotor craft doing an evasive maneuver (when they were); etc, etc, etc. It would appear that there was a strategy of not fixing anything (that could reasonably be fixed) in the hope of better promoting the simplistic argument that nothing could be known beyond all reasonable doubt.
I believe that this strategy is dodgy as it could have obstructed finding a cause that not only cleared the pilots but led to justice.
.
A specific example of how the problem of analysis could be reduced by full and open debate is the elimination of my own pet Personnel Locator Beacon (PLB) theory by establishing that the necessary on board equipment was not fitted – but this seems to be a taboo subject. I know that the equipment was available in ’94 and fitted to some of the first HC2s – but I have no way of knowing if it was fitted to ZD576 (although much circumstantial evidence points to its use). After 12 years and changes to the personnel locator systems, it can hardly be a great state secret that an ARS-6 module was fitted to ZD576 – unless there is a reason.
With all your (other contributors here too) contacts, standing, and experience why not have the balls to ask around – the ground crews/ techs that worked on HC2 Chinooks – when were the first sets fitted and to which a/c?
Even if you cannot glean that it was definitely fitted to ZD576, if this a/c was anomalous in its being declared as not having it fitted when others in the flight at the time had then you can start to think a bit.
It would after all be an interesting topic in its own right – a point I have made before – it has been the cornerstone of CSAR and SF personnel extraction for some time now.
If such a system WAS fitted then – with everything else in place and the circumstantial evidence so completely fitting its use – surely the possibility of its misuse should be considered which would surely change the view of the pilots’ actions.
You wrote:
<<It's not even as though we don't have intimate knowledge of the entire subject. Or totally relevant experience of this exact type of rotary aircraft, it's introduction into service, it's failings, the operation, the crew, or the area, the subsequent investigations, the BoI, and inquiries.>>
If I may draw your attention to some of our earlier debates, some of you had not even understood the fundamental difference between TANS and the SuperTANS navigation system as used by ZD576; the description of the wx on that leg to the Mull was ambiguous; their intentions re the route in that vicinity was not stated clearly; the final control positions were not acknowledged as being appropriate for a large twin rotor craft doing an evasive maneuver (when they were); etc, etc, etc. It would appear that there was a strategy of not fixing anything (that could reasonably be fixed) in the hope of better promoting the simplistic argument that nothing could be known beyond all reasonable doubt.
I believe that this strategy is dodgy as it could have obstructed finding a cause that not only cleared the pilots but led to justice.
.
A specific example of how the problem of analysis could be reduced by full and open debate is the elimination of my own pet Personnel Locator Beacon (PLB) theory by establishing that the necessary on board equipment was not fitted – but this seems to be a taboo subject. I know that the equipment was available in ’94 and fitted to some of the first HC2s – but I have no way of knowing if it was fitted to ZD576 (although much circumstantial evidence points to its use). After 12 years and changes to the personnel locator systems, it can hardly be a great state secret that an ARS-6 module was fitted to ZD576 – unless there is a reason.
With all your (other contributors here too) contacts, standing, and experience why not have the balls to ask around – the ground crews/ techs that worked on HC2 Chinooks – when were the first sets fitted and to which a/c?
Even if you cannot glean that it was definitely fitted to ZD576, if this a/c was anomalous in its being declared as not having it fitted when others in the flight at the time had then you can start to think a bit.
It would after all be an interesting topic in its own right – a point I have made before – it has been the cornerstone of CSAR and SF personnel extraction for some time now.
If such a system WAS fitted then – with everything else in place and the circumstantial evidence so completely fitting its use – surely the possibility of its misuse should be considered which would surely change the view of the pilots’ actions.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that the equipment was available in ’94 and fitted to some of the first HC2s – but I have no way of knowing if it was fitted to ZD576 (although much circumstantial evidence points to its use).
You are entitled to your opinions, but your insistence on repeating this over and over, despite assurances that the kit wasn't fitted to the aircraft, is quite ridiculous. We (the Campaign) don't need any additional hypotheses as there are already sufficient plausible possibilities to cast doubt on the finding that the pilots were negligent. This has been acknowledged by the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee but, for some reason yet to be discovered, not yet by the MoD/New Labour Government. For heaven's sake, even the Government of the time (John Major and Malcolm Rifkind) has now come down on the side of the Campaign and asked that the negligence finding be removed! One would have thought that the present Government would have enjoyed getting mileage out of the fact that its predecessors (the dreaded Tories) had got things so wrong, but something is holding them back.
May I respectfully suggest that you turn your intellect to fathoming out this enigma, rather than persisiting with your own pet theory which has already been discredited?