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 9th Jul 2006, 22:52
  #2381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Thumbs up

I have said it before, as have others and I will say it again, there is no way, I repeat no way that anyone posting on hear will ever ever ever change JP or the Cat's mind.

Whether they are simply mis informed, part of the MOD machine or of the same the same evil vein as the malicious d246 we will never know but not one single person on here will ever illicit an honest answer to a question we pose to this slippery pair as they spin better than Mandelson ever did and will distort everything we ask, so lets try to ignore them and back Brian with the real purpose of this thread


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 00:20
  #2382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
John Blakeley
You wrote:
<<Yes I was aware of the limitations of the Stn Cdr Aldergrove’s comments. He is the only one to comment on the illegal maintenance practices of the detachment wrt ZD 576, but then he accepts them with no idea of their potential implications.>>
.
And there was that rumour of concerns by the RAF’s SIB?
Is anyone here in a position to ask the ground detachment if there was anything new/ unfamiliar in the nav racks immediately before that flight?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 00:43
  #2383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ACT, Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 493
Walter - Who are you?

Walter direct questions if i may, because you come across as a fool who has read an accident report and then found an internet search engine.

1. Have you served in a military force?

2. Was it the Royal Air Force?

3. What did you fly?

4. Have you flown a helicopter around the west coast of Scotland?

5. Have you been to Scotland?

6. Have you been in a Scotland during Winter?

I could go on but having followed this thread for 18 months your rantings offer NOTHING to what Brian and others are trying to achieve.

Reasoned debate by all means but get a life and if you truly believe spooks, conspiracy, and whatever else this helicopter was in your eyes carrying, set up your own website and go for it. I happen to think they got caught out and screwed up. Not the first and they will not be the last.
RIP
Skeleton is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 12:36
  #2384 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chinook

Always broken in Wilts.
Pots and kettles come to mind. Please have a look at 2331 and 2338, and let's have your reply. And lay off the insults; we just happen to have different views. Regards
 
Old 10th Jul 2006, 12:53
  #2385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
JP

2331 - Since absence of evidence cannot be regarded as evidence of absence, this is a pointless question.

2338 - Answered admirably by Brian Dixon.

Maybe I'm just thick-skinned, but I can detect no hint of an insult towards you in ABIW's post.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 12:54
  #2386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
And how is it possible to have

different views
In a case in which there is supposed to be:

Absolutely no doubt whatsoever
??? ??? ???
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 19:54
  #2387 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chinook

AnTeallach.
How about... evil,... malicious,.. slippery? JP
 
Old 10th Jul 2006, 21:43
  #2388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
John Blakely,

My apologies for a tardy reply, but I am having to make constant trips to a house we are trying to sell and, at the same time, try to bring some order out of the chaos caused by last weeks storms which brought down 4 Oaks in our Garden alone. It took some time to clear the roads in and out of the Hamlet of fallen trees (I am getting to be quite a dab hand with a chainsaw). One thing I did learn in the process was, however, that this tiny Hamlet was the furthest outpost of the English enclave in France during the 100 years War. Just a few miles from the Town whose Scion fired the arrow that killed Richard the Lionheart.

I can lay no claim to match your knowledge on engineering matters in general or in the case of the Chinook. I would, however, lay a modest claim to some knowledge of the aspects of "AIRMANSHIP" which, in my humble opinion, are at the heart of this contentious matter.

Air Staff Instructions laid down quite clearly that ALL Aircrew ARE to partake of Breakfast before flying. The BOI found that the Co-Pilot and ALM's had Breakfast but were unable to establish whether the Captain did. This may seem a minor point; but it is, in my opinion, just the starting block for the series of errors which led to the crash.

I would suggest that it would be natural for both Pilots to meet at Breakfast and then go to the Met Office together to get a briefing: however only Flt Lt Tapper went to Met. He then proceeded to the crewroom to brief the rest of the crew - (at least it was assumed that is what happened as I do not recall any witnesses to that event). I would suggest that, apart from local training sorties, it is imperative that all Flight Deck crew, apart from Air Engineers,attend Met Briefing and that ASI's reflected that at the time.

You will have noted that the photocopy of the chart left behind in Ops showed that it was not in the handwriting of either of the Pilot's on the fatal flight; it was prepared by the RN Exchange Officer who was the Captain of the other crew because he assumed that "Crew Duty" constraints would require the use of BOTH crews.

We now come to the aspect of "Crew Duty Time". They had requested,and received, 2 extensions of Crew Duty Time: but as time passed and the PAX were not arriving it must have become obvious that they had a major problem. They would require another, exceptionnel, extension or permission to nightstop outside Theatre.

This was the starting point scenario for the sortie - way behind scheduled departure time - for a crew that had been on the go, without food, since early morning. It is little wonder to me that they made such basic errors on this final sortie as having disparate altimeter sub-scale settings. The first thing that is taught to Pilots who engage in low level flight is the imperative of having the regional pressure setting on all flight deck Altimeters so that there is NO confusion when executing an emergency climb to Safety Altitude.

I understand that the average groundspeed from the ATC fix leaving the Aldergrove CTZ boundary to impact was 158 kts.

I would suggest that anything approaching that speed would have been decidedly high given the forecast, and potentially suicidal in the actual, weather conditions.

I remember an accident report in "Air Clues" some 40 years ago where the headline was "Nibbled to death by ducks". A series of seemingly innocuous and trivial incidents led to a mass abandonment of 6 Hunter aircraft. In that scenario however, they all survived.
cazatou is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2006, 22:46
  #2389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
So now hunger is a major contributor to this incident

Good grief just when you think you have heard it all another little gem pops up. Your ignorence of of all matters SH wise has often been referred to by others on here and again manifests itself with your latest missive.

For your information there would have been more food, of all shapes and sizes in the cupboards of the 72/230 crewrooms than you could shake a stick at. The crew as a whole could have devoured their own body weight from a whole host of high carb/energy items like chocolate, a vast array of canned goods, bread etc etc and not made a dent on the stock held so your supposition that the crew were hungry is total bolleaux. It was common practice for guys to eat in the tea bar rather than the mess for a variety of reasons, like maybe to get a lie in before an expected LONG DAY and anyone with even a smidgen of SH nouse would know this.

I am sure others will address your further suppositions but I will tell you that your theory "This was the starting point scenario for the sortie - way behind scheduled departure time - for a crew that had been on the go, without food, since early morning" is rubbish

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 11th Jul 2006 at 08:41.
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 00:03
  #2390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
The first thing that is taught to Pilots who engage in low level flight is the imperative of having the regional pressure setting on all flight deck Altimeters so that there is NO confusion when executing an emergency climb to Safety Altitude

That maybe the case for overland Low flying but having the regional set when you are low level over the Sea is pretty pointless. The QFF would have been more appropriate
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 00:03
  #2391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ACT, Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 493
Walter where art thou Walter?
Skeleton is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 06:53
  #2392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Ah the cause at last, we have seen the light. Nothing to do with mechanical failure, conspiracy or even bad luck. It's not having breakfast together!
d246 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 10:10
  #2393 (permalink)  
vincit veritas
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by cazatou
..... I would, however, lay a modest claim to some knowledge of the aspects of "AIRMANSHIP" which, in my humble opinion, are at the heart of this contentious matter......
Hardly 'without doubt whatsoever' is it? Your post only underlines the fact that whereever you look there is doubt!
XM147 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 10:20
  #2394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
ABIW

Good grief just when you think you have heard it all another little gem pops up.
Sadly I have to disagree that cazatou (K52)'s post contains anything new. He has said all of this before. We are of course simply going over the same old ground once again!

All of his 'allegations' (if they can be called that) were dealt with by the original BOI. His is simply an attempt to 'smear' the crew, in an insidious way, because he cannot produce any evidence to satisfy the absolute standard of proof required.

It is the only line of attack available to him!

He said:
in my humble opinion,
'Matters of opinion' are not 'matters of fact'

When there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, it is not possible to have differing opinions!
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 13:40
  #2395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
ABIW & Tandemrotor,

As you are well aware ASI's stated that Aircrew are to have breakfast before flying. The Co-Pilot and the ALM's had breakfast in their respective Messes. It may be that the Captain had something to eat in the crewroom; but the BOI were unable to establish whether he had or not. What is certain is that the Captain attended the Met Office by himself. Why did the Captain @ Co-Pilot not breakfast together and attend Met together?

VecVec

I take your point re QFF but RAF norm would be Regional QNH for low flying and their route did take them towards cloud covered high ground. The salient point is that there was a major difference between the 2 Pilots altimeter settings. The BOI postulated that the Captains altimeter was set to Aldergrove QFE.
cazatou is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 14:01
  #2396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Cat,
Your arrogance seems to know no bounds, where in the ASI's you refer to does it state WHERE or with WHOM breakfast or any other meal for that fact is to be taken Where in the document does it state what breakfast is to consist of, is it kippers and kedgeri or cereal and toast or bangers bacon eggs etc or simply a bowl of cereal. To say you must have breakfast and then not quantify it is a nonsense that all professional aviators have known of for years and deal with in there own manner, but as you clearly do not fall into this category it's just another FACT you seem unaware of.

"It may be that the Captain had something to eat in the crewroom; but the BOI were unable to establish whether he had or not".........is supposed to mean what exactly, bearing in mind you categorically state in your post yesterday that hunger was a factor in this accident,... do tell as to me it casts some DOUBT over your assertions

Have you even the tiniest smidgen of an idea as to how experianced, or even inexperianced SH crews prepare themselves for flight, how the various tasks prior to "walking" like met, int, nvg collection, survival eqpt etc etc are divided up between crew members.........

Instead of reguritating the BOI from your standpoint of TOTAL IGNORANCE why not ask some of those informed folks in here what actually happens on a day to day basis before you post your next load of tripe

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 11th Jul 2006 at 16:18.
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 16:50
  #2397 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chinook

ABIW. Temper, temper!. JP
 
Old 11th Jul 2006, 17:06
  #2398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Sometimes you have to shout to make some people hear JP but I very much doubt it will change a couple of tunes in this case

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 11th Jul 2006 at 17:40.
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 17:38
  #2399 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,890
Unfortunately, cazatou persists in trying to apply his personal brand of fixed wing "logic" to the situation and still cannot differentiate between fact and supposition or opinion.

He appears to be absolutely determined to find any reason he can to appease his mindset and has persisted in this approach for some time. He does rather appear to be clutching at straws in this instance.

I have been flying for a living for thirty years or so, a high proportion of it as an RAF SH captain and A2QHI; some of it in the NI theatre (including a particular type of night special ops) and a mix of single pilot / multi pilot ops. I was also a fixed wing QFI. However, I can't recall many occasions where I had a nice cosy little breakfast with my co-pilot. I don't think my wife would have appreciated it. In fact, I never have been one for taking early breakfast. I would often snack on something at the squadron a little later. Many other SH crew did similar, as ABIW has pointed out. I don't think this made me or anyone else negligent and certainly not grossly negligent.

The question regarding both pilots visiting the met office to brief together is completely spurious - how can this be construed as gross negligence? Much of my SH time was flown single pilot. I ensured I was briefed and I passed on any relevant information to the rest of the crew. There was no fundamental difference in this case.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2006, 19:44
  #2400 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
This is an accident in which many fine people lost their lives. It does no justice to the memory of any of them to see abuse, invective and accusations hurled backwards and forwards. I ask that we heave this thread back on topic. It is so sad to see it drag interminably on in the same ruts, with no real progress.

If I understand Brian Dixon correctly (and apologies Brian if I do not) he is not INSISTING that the pilots were not negligent. He is not saying he has incontrovertable proof of this.

The whole point of this thread WAS to try and establish whether there were unarguable grounds to support a finding of gross negligence from the evidence available. That was the requirement for such a finding to be made by a BOI. If there were not, then the campaign asked for the findings to be overturned. This thread has fruitlessly strayed a long way from that objective.

What we know is that the pilots, for some UNKNOWN reason, turned slightly away from their intended track, climbing, and impacted with a hill in cloud. All we have so far is arguments about speeds/visibilty/fitness for flight/strange avionics and other things, but no EVIDENCE. Rather than battle backwards and forwards about breakfasts, avionic fits, duty times, serviceability etc, hurling insults about, would it not be better to ask all those who are arguing that the crew were GROSSLY negligent to post here the exact reasons why they KNOW this - ie what is your actual evidence of negligence? This after all is what Brian's campaign is all about. Not what enables you to surmise that they were grossly negligent, or what you THINK they were doing, but what are your hard facts? The posts can and should be short and precise. State what your facts are and where they come from. I recommend considering placing all those 'combatants' who do not post in this way on your 'ignore' list, and then with a slimmed down view we can perhaps focus on trying to get the matter properly reviewed rather than trying to get the cause of the accident established on PPRuNe - which is an unlikely prospect.
BOAC 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.