Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
You refer to HMG in your response, and yes I'm vaguely aware of the fact that the current administration chooses to side with the Air Marshall's version of events (a version we know has been discredited by EVERY subsequent INDEPENDENT review)
This is of course, the same administration that convinced some, that there were WMDs in Iraq!!!
Strange though isn't it, that very many members of HMG AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, from the Prime Minister, Mr Major, to the Secretary of State for Defence, and numerous other ministers, have now joined the call for this unjustified verdict to be set aside!
It would seem "Your viewpoint is not shared by" them!
As far as your comments regarding faults disappearing without trace is concerned, I would say 2 things.
Firstly, have you ever used a computer before?? Such faults happen all the time. Especially when the software is poorly developed!
Secondly, and regarding another serious fault previously experienced by ZD576, not even the AAIB said it had disappeared, the evidence was present in the wreckage!
It is a shame you have such a 'broad brush' approach to this case! Only by careful examination of the evidence, can you reach a balanced view.
You refer to HMG in your response, and yes I'm vaguely aware of the fact that the current administration chooses to side with the Air Marshall's version of events (a version we know has been discredited by EVERY subsequent INDEPENDENT review)
This is of course, the same administration that convinced some, that there were WMDs in Iraq!!!
Strange though isn't it, that very many members of HMG AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, from the Prime Minister, Mr Major, to the Secretary of State for Defence, and numerous other ministers, have now joined the call for this unjustified verdict to be set aside!
It would seem "Your viewpoint is not shared by" them!
As far as your comments regarding faults disappearing without trace is concerned, I would say 2 things.
Firstly, have you ever used a computer before?? Such faults happen all the time. Especially when the software is poorly developed!
Secondly, and regarding another serious fault previously experienced by ZD576, not even the AAIB said it had disappeared, the evidence was present in the wreckage!
It is a shame you have such a 'broad brush' approach to this case! Only by careful examination of the evidence, can you reach a balanced view.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 29th Jun 2006 at 20:37.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh,
I accept that your views are honestly held; however this was a VFR transit where the aircraft crashed into high ground in IMC in locally poor weather that had been forecast.
There was no operational reason for the aircraft to have been flown on that route. The decision to use that route, as well as the planning to ensure the safety of the aircraft, rested solely with the two pilots who flew the task.
I accept that your views are honestly held; however this was a VFR transit where the aircraft crashed into high ground in IMC in locally poor weather that had been forecast.
There was no operational reason for the aircraft to have been flown on that route. The decision to use that route, as well as the planning to ensure the safety of the aircraft, rested solely with the two pilots who flew the task.
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 Cazatou,
Rather than the above, I would ask the following questions:
1. Who tasked the flight?
2. Who decided that the flight should be undertaken using ZD576 - a Chinook with a known history of problems?
3. What was the operational necessity for the Chinook HC2 to be used?
I thought that the route, and planning of the sortie by the crew had been deemed wholly appropriate and acceptable by all who have reviewed this tragedy.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
There was no operational reason for the aircraft to have been flown on that route. The decision to use that route, as well as the planning to ensure the safety of the aircraft, rested solely with the two pilots who flew the task.
1. Who tasked the flight?
2. Who decided that the flight should be undertaken using ZD576 - a Chinook with a known history of problems?
3. What was the operational necessity for the Chinook HC2 to be used?
I thought that the route, and planning of the sortie by the crew had been deemed wholly appropriate and acceptable by all who have reviewed this tragedy.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Caz
Thank you sincerely for your considered and polite response. I assure you I shall always bow to your practical flying experience on such matters. But you asked an engineering question and I gave an honest answer. I just think the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever has not been satisfied. I guess we just have to agree to differ.
Best wishes
Thank you sincerely for your considered and polite response. I assure you I shall always bow to your practical flying experience on such matters. But you asked an engineering question and I gave an honest answer. I just think the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever has not been satisfied. I guess we just have to agree to differ.
Best wishes
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
Thank you for your courteous response.
I accept that, whilst there may have been suspicions about the efficacy of certain systems on the Chinook, there is no evidence that they were responsible for the accident.
Equally, there does not appear to be any evidence that they have been responsible for any major accident since.
Thank you for your courteous response.
I accept that, whilst there may have been suspicions about the efficacy of certain systems on the Chinook, there is no evidence that they were responsible for the accident.
Equally, there does not appear to be any evidence that they have been responsible for any major accident since.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Pulse1 (at 2321) Claims that i would not say what the crew would have seen from the cockpit that would have made me allege that they were being negligent.
I do not recall being asked, but that apart, my answer is that the crew would have seen ahead of them, hills that were wholly or partly covered in cloud and mist according to expert evidence (I agree with Catazou at 2323), and that being unable to pinpont their position (the lighthouse was obscured according to the 'lone yachtsman', and they had just made a sea crossing), they should have exercised due caution and climbed to their SA, or, if they could not do that for whatever reason (see ArkRoyals many posts on the subject) turned away to fly up the coast. That is what I would most certainly have done.
Now, once and for all, hands up all those who would have pressed on towards the coast. (-and no more ducking and weaving please!) With all good wishes JP
I do not recall being asked, but that apart, my answer is that the crew would have seen ahead of them, hills that were wholly or partly covered in cloud and mist according to expert evidence (I agree with Catazou at 2323), and that being unable to pinpont their position (the lighthouse was obscured according to the 'lone yachtsman', and they had just made a sea crossing), they should have exercised due caution and climbed to their SA, or, if they could not do that for whatever reason (see ArkRoyals many posts on the subject) turned away to fly up the coast. That is what I would most certainly have done.
Now, once and for all, hands up all those who would have pressed on towards the coast. (-and no more ducking and weaving please!) With all good wishes JP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Apologies, I missed your post in a welter of invective from Tandemrotor.
Who selected the Chinook for the task? Probably a Corporal who would have no knowledge of any specific problems associated with the introduction of the Mk2 into service.
As a tasking problem it made sense. Why use 2 Puma's when you can use 1 Chinook. It gives you an extra airframe to use in case of emergency.
As for those in a more Senior position, they had an asset that had been cleared for use without any restriction on the sort of task that was proposed.
Apologies, I missed your post in a welter of invective from Tandemrotor.
Who selected the Chinook for the task? Probably a Corporal who would have no knowledge of any specific problems associated with the introduction of the Mk2 into service.
As a tasking problem it made sense. Why use 2 Puma's when you can use 1 Chinook. It gives you an extra airframe to use in case of emergency.
As for those in a more Senior position, they had an asset that had been cleared for use without any restriction on the sort of task that was proposed.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read this thread regularly and seldom posted, apart from trying to persuade Walt to stop blethering about US conspiricies with regards to equipment NOT FITTED TO THIS A/C AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, as others hear are far more informed than I however I cannot help but ask JP, and CAZ for that matter to answer my humble question.
"I do not recall being asked, but that apart, my answer is that the crew would have seen ahead of them, hills that were wholly or partly covered in cloud and mist"
Do you actually KNOW this is what the crew saw in front of them, I fully understand you base your supposition on the evidence of the two yachtsmen but could you swear on a bible, bet your last dollar etc etc that your version is ACTUALLY what the two pilots saw? Bearing in mind the yachtsmen were seperated vertically and laterally from the A/C how accurate is their intepretation?
The only people who really know what happened, what was visible from the flight deck windows, what caused this terrible incident are the four dead crew members an no amount of supposition on our parts will ever determine with complete confidence and certainty what ACTUALLY happened!
There are lots of folks who think your version of events is probably right but they would all aggree that "probably" does not cut the mustard with regards to the verdict in this case. You will notice that hardly anyone has tried to argue you are wrong, in fact all they have suggested is that your CERTAINTY is based on supposition and supposition cannot be used to dermine guilt in this case.
I would humbly suggest, no hint of sarcasm or bile intended guys, to Brian, Tandem and the like that you good folks will never convince JP or Caz to admit that the degree of certainty required to convict the two pilots in this manner has never been properly satisfied and with this in mind maybe a truce should be called and the fight to clear Rick and John's good names continued without this diversion.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
"I do not recall being asked, but that apart, my answer is that the crew would have seen ahead of them, hills that were wholly or partly covered in cloud and mist"
Do you actually KNOW this is what the crew saw in front of them, I fully understand you base your supposition on the evidence of the two yachtsmen but could you swear on a bible, bet your last dollar etc etc that your version is ACTUALLY what the two pilots saw? Bearing in mind the yachtsmen were seperated vertically and laterally from the A/C how accurate is their intepretation?
The only people who really know what happened, what was visible from the flight deck windows, what caused this terrible incident are the four dead crew members an no amount of supposition on our parts will ever determine with complete confidence and certainty what ACTUALLY happened!
There are lots of folks who think your version of events is probably right but they would all aggree that "probably" does not cut the mustard with regards to the verdict in this case. You will notice that hardly anyone has tried to argue you are wrong, in fact all they have suggested is that your CERTAINTY is based on supposition and supposition cannot be used to dermine guilt in this case.
I would humbly suggest, no hint of sarcasm or bile intended guys, to Brian, Tandem and the like that you good folks will never convince JP or Caz to admit that the degree of certainty required to convict the two pilots in this manner has never been properly satisfied and with this in mind maybe a truce should be called and the fight to clear Rick and John's good names continued without this diversion.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse1
Thanks for the correction at #2321. It does though still leave the question as to why this argument for negligence at some indeterminate point before the waypoint change, wherever and whenever that was, was not made until some time after the original verdict, and after the safety of that decision had first been called into question. If it is so clear, as some argue here, that the crew had acted negligently in their very approach to flying this sortie in the conditions of the day, then why was that not made the central argument of the Air Marshals' judgement until sometime after they were first challenged to justify their verdict? It seems to me that the rigour of their argument must be undermined. They may still, of course, have been right. The certainty required, however, is not there.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ginseng,
Sorry, I do not understand. It was AOC 1 Gp who convened the Inquiry and to whom it reported. The Terms of Reference required the BOI to give their OPINION but it was always down to the AOC to DETERMINE.
Sorry, I do not understand. It was AOC 1 Gp who convened the Inquiry and to whom it reported. The Terms of Reference required the BOI to give their OPINION but it was always down to the AOC to DETERMINE.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW,
I certainly do not base my opinion solely on what the yachtsman saw. I do base it on what the Lighthouse Keeper (a qualified Met Observer), his deputy and a dozen or so hill walkers reported as well.
All the evidence statements were in the BOI - some people have selective reading.
I certainly do not base my opinion solely on what the yachtsman saw. I do base it on what the Lighthouse Keeper (a qualified Met Observer), his deputy and a dozen or so hill walkers reported as well.
All the evidence statements were in the BOI - some people have selective reading.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
I fail to see how anything in my last post prompts that reply, nevertheless I agree broadly with your last sentence. The crux of the matter, though, is how the Reviewing Officer(s) "determine" an outcome other than by reading and digesting the evidence and the opinion of the Board. The Board, after all, investigates the circumstances on their behalf. If we are saying here that the Reviewing Officers disagreed with the Board's interpretation of the evidence, as was their right, then we are also acknowledging that their verdict was their different opinion about the same evidence. Opinions vary, and are no basis for conviction for a serious offence.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
john Purdey,
Thank you for answering the question. I would love to see you being cross examined by a good barrister over what you mean exactly by "wholly or in part", being a sufficiently precise picture from the cockpit to condemn these pilots to what is effectively a manslaughter charge. Come to think of it, I would like to see the two reviewing officers cross examined by a good barrister on this subject. Oh, I forgot, they were, by the Select Committee and they were found to be in error.
abiw,
Brian would have to tell us if this debate was a diversion from the main campaign. In effect, if cazatou and JP go quiet, the thread calms down (except for dear Walter) and is used to communicate and rally forces to support the campaign.
Do you think that cazatou and jp might be trying to divert the campaign? If they are, for me at least, they are failing spectacularly.
Thank you for answering the question. I would love to see you being cross examined by a good barrister over what you mean exactly by "wholly or in part", being a sufficiently precise picture from the cockpit to condemn these pilots to what is effectively a manslaughter charge. Come to think of it, I would like to see the two reviewing officers cross examined by a good barrister on this subject. Oh, I forgot, they were, by the Select Committee and they were found to be in error.
abiw,
Brian would have to tell us if this debate was a diversion from the main campaign. In effect, if cazatou and JP go quiet, the thread calms down (except for dear Walter) and is used to communicate and rally forces to support the campaign.
Do you think that cazatou and jp might be trying to divert the campaign? If they are, for me at least, they are failing spectacularly.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
You accuse ME of selective reading, I asked JP and your good self to answer one simple question in response to a statement JP had made with regards the weather conditions viewed from the flight deck.......and it is a follows..........
"Do you actually KNOW this is what the crew saw in front of them" and "could you swear on a bible, bet your last dollar etc etc that your version is ACTUALLY what the two pilots saw?"
I would suggest you can only answer this one way........NO, because the only people who know what the view out of the cockpit windows are no longer with us. If you re read my post you will see that my main thrust is that far too much supposition has been made, and whilst you and JP are PROBABLY right you are NOT CERTAINLY right which makes the verdict in this case wrong, IMHO.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
You accuse ME of selective reading, I asked JP and your good self to answer one simple question in response to a statement JP had made with regards the weather conditions viewed from the flight deck.......and it is a follows..........
"Do you actually KNOW this is what the crew saw in front of them" and "could you swear on a bible, bet your last dollar etc etc that your version is ACTUALLY what the two pilots saw?"
I would suggest you can only answer this one way........NO, because the only people who know what the view out of the cockpit windows are no longer with us. If you re read my post you will see that my main thrust is that far too much supposition has been made, and whilst you and JP are PROBABLY right you are NOT CERTAINLY right which makes the verdict in this case wrong, IMHO.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys, it's time to calm down the debate - it's starting to melt my monitor!
Actually, you're all agreed that the verdict is unjust. What you're arguing about is the detail of various scenarios that could have led to the accident.
Some of you have intimate knowledge of the ac, ops and intended route, whilst others, like me, have extensive milops experience, inc LL in that area. Without a definitive conclusion the arguments become circular, which is what's happening now.
One of you may be absolutely accurate in your conclusions, but without CVR or FDR or crew evidence we will never know.
So we are all agreed that the verdict is a travesty of justice.
Actually, you're all agreed that the verdict is unjust. What you're arguing about is the detail of various scenarios that could have led to the accident.
Some of you have intimate knowledge of the ac, ops and intended route, whilst others, like me, have extensive milops experience, inc LL in that area. Without a definitive conclusion the arguments become circular, which is what's happening now.
One of you may be absolutely accurate in your conclusions, but without CVR or FDR or crew evidence we will never know.
So we are all agreed that the verdict is a travesty of justice.
FJJP,
I don't think that jp and cazatou would agree with that.
john purdey,
Could you please explain to me how the lighthouse keeper and hill walkers who were in mist with a visibility of 10 - 20 metres could possibly be witnesses to the conditions at waypoint change, 1600 metres away?
So we are all agreed that the verdict is a travesty of justice
john purdey,
Could you please explain to me how the lighthouse keeper and hill walkers who were in mist with a visibility of 10 - 20 metres could possibly be witnesses to the conditions at waypoint change, 1600 metres away?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Pulse1. I have never said thay we know the weather at waypoint change. We do know, as you say, what it was like on the hills. And if the crew did not see those conditions ahead of them, then what did they see? But I do agree that we are going around in circles (once again!). JP
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Originally Posted by cazatou
Tandemrotor,
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Your viewpoint is not shared by MOD or HMG. Can you quote any instance of a fault occurring on a Chinook Mk2 in the last 12 years that would, if it had occurred on ZD576, have caused the accident and disappeared completely without trace?
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Your viewpoint is not shared by MOD or HMG. Can you quote any instance of a fault occurring on a Chinook Mk2 in the last 12 years that would, if it had occurred on ZD576, have caused the accident and disappeared completely without trace?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
I don't follow - which evidence do you mean?
Anything other than evidence is irrelevant to this thread.
Anything other than evidence is irrelevant to this thread.
