Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW
Just why do you think that the suggested system, 12 years on, has not been described/ discussed here – even just for interest?
.
Tecumse
“improbable theories”
Let’s compare three theories on offer:
1 The MOD one:
Very experienced and able pilots with important passengers on a familiar route traveling in good VFR conditions directly approached a known land mass shrouded in mist so closely that there was no margin in case of technical problems or distraction – and flew into it.
.
2 A “Campaign” one:
Before they got so close as to be negligent in the conditions, an unknown problem (such as a control fault) prevented them, for a significant time, from doing anything else but fly straight on – yet allowed them control at the last minute and left no evidence.
.
3 My “improbable” “conspiracy” theory:
The team on board were known to be at loggerheads with other elements of the intelligence community who had been holding secret talks with the IRA and were architects of the peace process; had they got to Ft George and actioned their plans (which were militarily more aggressive), the peace process that the Westminster government wanted would have been wrecked.
The ceasefire occurred indecently soon after the crash.
A contrived trial of the system as I have suggested – a feature new to HC2 Chinooks and of great interest to SF men such as on that team – offered a way of interrupting their trip. The approach leg to the Mull was an obvious opportunity to do such a test and personnel stationed nearby had the ground side equipment and experience with it. All the available data and circumstantial evidence is consistent with the use of such a system.
I now have confidence that the equipment was available at the time – I just need someone to confirm that it was fitted for this flight or that it was known that a test of some sort was to occur or that there was some part of the communications that strongly suggested that there was some sort of unusual activity going on.
.
I find the first two improbable.
The last is not improbable, I would suggest, but I can accept “unpalatable” and concede it would require a reality adjustment for many to even contemplate it.
Just why do you think that the suggested system, 12 years on, has not been described/ discussed here – even just for interest?
.
Tecumse
“improbable theories”
Let’s compare three theories on offer:
1 The MOD one:
Very experienced and able pilots with important passengers on a familiar route traveling in good VFR conditions directly approached a known land mass shrouded in mist so closely that there was no margin in case of technical problems or distraction – and flew into it.
.
2 A “Campaign” one:
Before they got so close as to be negligent in the conditions, an unknown problem (such as a control fault) prevented them, for a significant time, from doing anything else but fly straight on – yet allowed them control at the last minute and left no evidence.
.
3 My “improbable” “conspiracy” theory:
The team on board were known to be at loggerheads with other elements of the intelligence community who had been holding secret talks with the IRA and were architects of the peace process; had they got to Ft George and actioned their plans (which were militarily more aggressive), the peace process that the Westminster government wanted would have been wrecked.
The ceasefire occurred indecently soon after the crash.
A contrived trial of the system as I have suggested – a feature new to HC2 Chinooks and of great interest to SF men such as on that team – offered a way of interrupting their trip. The approach leg to the Mull was an obvious opportunity to do such a test and personnel stationed nearby had the ground side equipment and experience with it. All the available data and circumstantial evidence is consistent with the use of such a system.
I now have confidence that the equipment was available at the time – I just need someone to confirm that it was fitted for this flight or that it was known that a test of some sort was to occur or that there was some part of the communications that strongly suggested that there was some sort of unusual activity going on.
.
I find the first two improbable.
The last is not improbable, I would suggest, but I can accept “unpalatable” and concede it would require a reality adjustment for many to even contemplate it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
Over the years, I've known two public servants absolutely crucified for unauthorised disclosure of "classified" material, in what they believed to be the public interest.
In one case, the Mandarins were so incensed, they called in the Gendarmerie who executed a search warrant on the individual's residence. When all that was found was a copy of the Departmental Telephone Directory, the person concerned was still charged, as the Directory was alleged to be classified.
In both cases, the individuals concerned were subjected to lengthy disciplinary processes that adversely affected their health and that of their families. Financially, the impact was also significant as they were suspended without pay. One was ultimately re-instated but never promoted again; the other litigated, won damages but is unemployable.
As in the Clive Ponting case, one might win out in the end. But to do so is to go to Hell and back, “Pour discourager les autres”!
Over the years, I've known two public servants absolutely crucified for unauthorised disclosure of "classified" material, in what they believed to be the public interest.
In one case, the Mandarins were so incensed, they called in the Gendarmerie who executed a search warrant on the individual's residence. When all that was found was a copy of the Departmental Telephone Directory, the person concerned was still charged, as the Directory was alleged to be classified.
In both cases, the individuals concerned were subjected to lengthy disciplinary processes that adversely affected their health and that of their families. Financially, the impact was also significant as they were suspended without pay. One was ultimately re-instated but never promoted again; the other litigated, won damages but is unemployable.
As in the Clive Ponting case, one might win out in the end. But to do so is to go to Hell and back, “Pour discourager les autres”!
Walter
“A contrived trial of the (112) system”
I have no doubt whatsoever that what you talk of is technically possible. I have myself overseen the placing of trials nav kit on top of a jockinese mountain with carry-on kit in the helo. But, very importantly, I would not have received approval to do it on such an operational flight, and no-one in their right mind would have authorised anything similar given the nature of ZD576’s last flight. A proper Trials Plan has to be submitted and approved well in advance. People have to be trained. Practice runs. Factory testing. And so on. Yes, it is possible, but so many people from within and outside the MoD must be party to it, and sign approvals, that it would be almost impossible to hide. Especially if, as you say, the a/c kit had to be fitted, not just carried. To prove your theory would require documentation which the MoD could quite legitimately have destroyed long ago.
If it were a Boscombe aircraft (that is, a PE Fleet aircraft not belonging to the RAF), flying under their rules, I would say such a trial would be easier; but it wasn’t. Not least because Boscombe had declined to fly the Mk2 at that time. May I suggest this is a better line of attack in a campaign which, after all, is not trying to find out what happened, but whose main aim is to gain acceptance that there exists doubt as to the cause.
I cannot say you are 100% wrong. But it is an unnecessary complication which you will find impossible to prove by your own efforts. And because the system you talk of requires operator input at both ends, you are in effect making a case to support the AVMs. But because what you suggest is technically feasible, it may find favour in a separate thread.
All the best
“A contrived trial of the (112) system”
I have no doubt whatsoever that what you talk of is technically possible. I have myself overseen the placing of trials nav kit on top of a jockinese mountain with carry-on kit in the helo. But, very importantly, I would not have received approval to do it on such an operational flight, and no-one in their right mind would have authorised anything similar given the nature of ZD576’s last flight. A proper Trials Plan has to be submitted and approved well in advance. People have to be trained. Practice runs. Factory testing. And so on. Yes, it is possible, but so many people from within and outside the MoD must be party to it, and sign approvals, that it would be almost impossible to hide. Especially if, as you say, the a/c kit had to be fitted, not just carried. To prove your theory would require documentation which the MoD could quite legitimately have destroyed long ago.
If it were a Boscombe aircraft (that is, a PE Fleet aircraft not belonging to the RAF), flying under their rules, I would say such a trial would be easier; but it wasn’t. Not least because Boscombe had declined to fly the Mk2 at that time. May I suggest this is a better line of attack in a campaign which, after all, is not trying to find out what happened, but whose main aim is to gain acceptance that there exists doubt as to the cause.
I cannot say you are 100% wrong. But it is an unnecessary complication which you will find impossible to prove by your own efforts. And because the system you talk of requires operator input at both ends, you are in effect making a case to support the AVMs. But because what you suggest is technically feasible, it may find favour in a separate thread.
All the best
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 all.
Apologies for the silence. Disappeared off for a few days and now back.
Walter, just a few points to clear up. The Campaign's position is not that an unknown problem cleared itself just prior to impact. The Campaign's position is that the Government's allegation of negligence against the pilots falls woefully short of the burden of proof required to sustain their 'findings'.
Also, the Campaign has always said that we would sooner lose the battle (not the war, note!), rather than have an individual put themselves in the firing line. If someone out there has a 'smoking gun' but to disclose that fact would cause that individual severe problems, then we would rather they keep silent. We will uncover said smoking gun eventually. There have already been two sacrificial lambs with regards this disgraceful saga. The Campaign does not seek to increase that number.
Now...... dear chap from the MoD (who undoubtedly reads this thread). Where are the 22 requested documents you promised me some two weeks ago? Answers to my questions would be useful too!
My best to you all, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Apologies for the silence. Disappeared off for a few days and now back.
Walter, just a few points to clear up. The Campaign's position is not that an unknown problem cleared itself just prior to impact. The Campaign's position is that the Government's allegation of negligence against the pilots falls woefully short of the burden of proof required to sustain their 'findings'.
Also, the Campaign has always said that we would sooner lose the battle (not the war, note!), rather than have an individual put themselves in the firing line. If someone out there has a 'smoking gun' but to disclose that fact would cause that individual severe problems, then we would rather they keep silent. We will uncover said smoking gun eventually. There have already been two sacrificial lambs with regards this disgraceful saga. The Campaign does not seek to increase that number.
Now...... dear chap from the MoD (who undoubtedly reads this thread). Where are the 22 requested documents you promised me some two weeks ago? Answers to my questions would be useful too!
My best to you all, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willi B
Thank you for answering ABIW’s post # 2472!
That is why I appealed to peoples values – it is a big ask to put the common good above one’s own welfare - look what happened to Dr David Kelly – BUT if he had stopped the UK going into Iraq, his sacrifice would have been worth it, in terms of Brit lives saved alone.
In this case, if an individual revealed information that established something different to the official line, he would indeed be risking his career, etc but surely worthwhile to get real justice for 29 people whose careers ended that day.
I feel sure that the members of that team aboard ZD576 must have known that they were risking their careers etc when taking a different strategic direction in their anti terrorism campaign to what the Westminster politicians wanted but they were doing what they thought was best for the British people.
What is needed is for anyone with significant information to have their courage and self sacrifice – we owe it to them.
Hopefully, this is such a high profile case that anyone falling foul of the “mandarins” would get much public support and perhaps also support from their colleagues.
Thank you for answering ABIW’s post # 2472!
That is why I appealed to peoples values – it is a big ask to put the common good above one’s own welfare - look what happened to Dr David Kelly – BUT if he had stopped the UK going into Iraq, his sacrifice would have been worth it, in terms of Brit lives saved alone.
In this case, if an individual revealed information that established something different to the official line, he would indeed be risking his career, etc but surely worthwhile to get real justice for 29 people whose careers ended that day.
I feel sure that the members of that team aboard ZD576 must have known that they were risking their careers etc when taking a different strategic direction in their anti terrorism campaign to what the Westminster politicians wanted but they were doing what they thought was best for the British people.
What is needed is for anyone with significant information to have their courage and self sacrifice – we owe it to them.
Hopefully, this is such a high profile case that anyone falling foul of the “mandarins” would get much public support and perhaps also support from their colleagues.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
While I admire your optimism and faith in the ability of gallant English Officers to "do the right thing", I suspect that actions such as you would wish, were a feature of 19th and early 20th Century Empire; and, with the odd exception, finished with Captain Oates at the South Pole in 1912.
Most people these days don't have private means. To be caught 'leaking' is to commit professional and personal Seppuku. And, once the news value has declined, the British tabloids won't be baying for Ministerial blood - at least not on that issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could explain.
While I admire your optimism and faith in the ability of gallant English Officers to "do the right thing", I suspect that actions such as you would wish, were a feature of 19th and early 20th Century Empire; and, with the odd exception, finished with Captain Oates at the South Pole in 1912.
Most people these days don't have private means. To be caught 'leaking' is to commit professional and personal Seppuku. And, once the news value has declined, the British tabloids won't be baying for Ministerial blood - at least not on that issue.
I feel sure that the members of that team aboard ZD576 must have known that they were risking their careers etc when taking a different strategic direction in their anti terrorism campaign to what the Westminster politicians wanted but they were doing what they thought was best for the British people.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
I would like you to read this post a couple of times before responding.
Can you please offer me a rational and reasonable explanation as to how the equipment you suggest was fitted to this aircraft without anyone apart from the crew on the day knowing about it?
Can you please explain how not a single person from the ground crew detachment, despite them having to service, preflight and complete all the documentation for the aircraft, knew anything what so ever about this supposed modification? I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now
Can you please explain how not a single member of the Chinook aircrew, at any level appear to know anything of this trial, and if they did why it has not come to light to date?
If what you suggest actually took place and bearing in mind the weeks, possibly months to get this clandestine project into place can you please explain why none of the family, close friends or colleagues of the crew knew anything, not even the tiniest hint of this secret trial you allude to.
Bearing in mind the extremely high level of security in force at the time can you further explain just how the installers of this equipment got onto Aldergrove without anyones knowledge, gained access to the aircraft without anyones kowledge and subsequently briefed the crew, again without anyones knowledge. How not a single person in the supervision chain knew of it and there was nothing in the auth sheets, outbrief or F700 to reflect it's taking place
I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly so I will stop there with the promise that should you provide conclusive evidence to myself and others on this thread that explains all my queries I will never post again doubting the veracity of your claim.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
I would like you to read this post a couple of times before responding.
Can you please offer me a rational and reasonable explanation as to how the equipment you suggest was fitted to this aircraft without anyone apart from the crew on the day knowing about it?
Can you please explain how not a single person from the ground crew detachment, despite them having to service, preflight and complete all the documentation for the aircraft, knew anything what so ever about this supposed modification? I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now
Can you please explain how not a single member of the Chinook aircrew, at any level appear to know anything of this trial, and if they did why it has not come to light to date?
If what you suggest actually took place and bearing in mind the weeks, possibly months to get this clandestine project into place can you please explain why none of the family, close friends or colleagues of the crew knew anything, not even the tiniest hint of this secret trial you allude to.
Bearing in mind the extremely high level of security in force at the time can you further explain just how the installers of this equipment got onto Aldergrove without anyones knowledge, gained access to the aircraft without anyones kowledge and subsequently briefed the crew, again without anyones knowledge. How not a single person in the supervision chain knew of it and there was nothing in the auth sheets, outbrief or F700 to reflect it's taking place
I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly so I will stop there with the promise that should you provide conclusive evidence to myself and others on this thread that explains all my queries I will never post again doubting the veracity of your claim.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willi B
Hi,
Re your point on “optimism and faith in the ability of gallant English Officers” – I am surprised that some on this thread who are serving or who have served have not responded to you on this!; personally, I can think of several well publicized actions in the Falklands War (not that long ago) where self sacrifice and plain old fashioned gallantry were displayed and of course the team on board ZD576 had not been working just for the money – whatever, sometimes the most humble of fellows can rise to the occasion and it was to anyone with information that I appealed to – a plea, if you like, to do the right thing.
I did not want to debate whether or not anyone should come forward – I was asking for them to – therefore I don’t understand why you are putting such a negative point – if someone responds, great.
You are not the only one to state clearly just how hard it is to “whistle blow”, you are quite correct, but to all of you I ask, on an issue such as this, if you so fear the system (that you serve) then what does this tell you about that system?
.
Now the explanation you asked for:
There were well known differences of opinion between elements of the security service with respect to NI – particularly between MI5 and MI6;
Many Westminster politicians (right up to and including the PM) had made public comments showing a desire to wash their hands of NI itself (as opposed to just the security problem);
MI6 had been the facilitators of secret talks with the IRA that had been going on for months before the crash:
The team on board ZD576 were planning a much more aggressive campaign believing that a military solution was possible and had they got to Ft George they would have either actioned their plans (wrecking the peace process) or would have had to have been over ruled by the politicians (which would have been very controversial and acrimonious) – THEY MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POLITICAL WILL FOR THE PEACE PROCESS AND PROBABLY HAD VIBES FROM THEIR SUPERIORS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SERVICES THAT THE PATH THEY WERE TAKING WAS NOT WANTED BUT THEY FOLLOWED THEIR CONSCIENCE NEVERTHELESS – they did not capitulate to terrorism, they did not abandon the British people in NI;
With the crash (of what subsequent history has shown to be a very reliable type of helicopter crewed by most able and experienced pilots in favourable met conditions for the basic low level ferry flight) the military option was off the table and the peace process continued;
The ceasefire was announced about a month after the crash.
.
I hope that this perspective helps clear up your first point too.
Hi,
Re your point on “optimism and faith in the ability of gallant English Officers” – I am surprised that some on this thread who are serving or who have served have not responded to you on this!; personally, I can think of several well publicized actions in the Falklands War (not that long ago) where self sacrifice and plain old fashioned gallantry were displayed and of course the team on board ZD576 had not been working just for the money – whatever, sometimes the most humble of fellows can rise to the occasion and it was to anyone with information that I appealed to – a plea, if you like, to do the right thing.
I did not want to debate whether or not anyone should come forward – I was asking for them to – therefore I don’t understand why you are putting such a negative point – if someone responds, great.
You are not the only one to state clearly just how hard it is to “whistle blow”, you are quite correct, but to all of you I ask, on an issue such as this, if you so fear the system (that you serve) then what does this tell you about that system?
.
Now the explanation you asked for:
There were well known differences of opinion between elements of the security service with respect to NI – particularly between MI5 and MI6;
Many Westminster politicians (right up to and including the PM) had made public comments showing a desire to wash their hands of NI itself (as opposed to just the security problem);
MI6 had been the facilitators of secret talks with the IRA that had been going on for months before the crash:
The team on board ZD576 were planning a much more aggressive campaign believing that a military solution was possible and had they got to Ft George they would have either actioned their plans (wrecking the peace process) or would have had to have been over ruled by the politicians (which would have been very controversial and acrimonious) – THEY MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POLITICAL WILL FOR THE PEACE PROCESS AND PROBABLY HAD VIBES FROM THEIR SUPERIORS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SERVICES THAT THE PATH THEY WERE TAKING WAS NOT WANTED BUT THEY FOLLOWED THEIR CONSCIENCE NEVERTHELESS – they did not capitulate to terrorism, they did not abandon the British people in NI;
With the crash (of what subsequent history has shown to be a very reliable type of helicopter crewed by most able and experienced pilots in favourable met conditions for the basic low level ferry flight) the military option was off the table and the peace process continued;
The ceasefire was announced about a month after the crash.
.
I hope that this perspective helps clear up your first point too.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
I ask you once again, and will continue till you respond, which I know you wont cos you cant
Walter,
I would like you to read this post a couple of times before responding.
Can you please offer me a rational and reasonable explanation as to how the equipment you suggest was fitted to this aircraft without anyone apart from the crew on the day knowing about it?
Can you please explain how not a single person from the ground crew detachment, despite them having to service, preflight and complete all the documentation for the aircraft, knew anything what so ever about this supposed modification? I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now
Can you please explain how not a single member of the Chinook aircrew, at any level appear to know anything of this trial, and if they did why it has not come to light to date?
If what you suggest actually took place and bearing in mind the weeks, possibly months to get this clandestine project into place can you please explain why none of the family, close friends or colleagues of the crew knew anything, not even the tiniest hint of this secret trial you allude to.
Bearing in mind the extremely high level of security in force at the time can you further explain just how the installers of this equipment got onto Aldergrove without anyones knowledge, gained access to the aircraft without anyones kowledge and subsequently briefed the crew, again without anyones knowledge. How not a single person in the supervision chain knew of it and there was nothing in the auth sheets, outbrief or F700 to reflect it's taking place
I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly so I will stop there with the promise that should you provide conclusive evidence to myself and others on this thread that explains all my queries I will never post again doubting the veracity of your claim.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
I ask you once again, and will continue till you respond, which I know you wont cos you cant
Walter,
I would like you to read this post a couple of times before responding.
Can you please offer me a rational and reasonable explanation as to how the equipment you suggest was fitted to this aircraft without anyone apart from the crew on the day knowing about it?
Can you please explain how not a single person from the ground crew detachment, despite them having to service, preflight and complete all the documentation for the aircraft, knew anything what so ever about this supposed modification? I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now
Can you please explain how not a single member of the Chinook aircrew, at any level appear to know anything of this trial, and if they did why it has not come to light to date?
If what you suggest actually took place and bearing in mind the weeks, possibly months to get this clandestine project into place can you please explain why none of the family, close friends or colleagues of the crew knew anything, not even the tiniest hint of this secret trial you allude to.
Bearing in mind the extremely high level of security in force at the time can you further explain just how the installers of this equipment got onto Aldergrove without anyones knowledge, gained access to the aircraft without anyones kowledge and subsequently briefed the crew, again without anyones knowledge. How not a single person in the supervision chain knew of it and there was nothing in the auth sheets, outbrief or F700 to reflect it's taking place
I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly so I will stop there with the promise that should you provide conclusive evidence to myself and others on this thread that explains all my queries I will never post again doubting the veracity of your claim.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW
As briefly as I can:
It was a simple mod – just about a plug and play with simple interfaces – the 47D avionics were designed with such systems in mind – I do not believe that the HC2 would have been different in this respect – why don’t you ask around about this system? – when it was first fitted, what was involved, etc? – then you can enlighten us all.
.
It could have been fitted immediately before the flight: work was done on the nav racks but no paper (F700) had been raised;
Regarding your comment << I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now >>,
Well I rather think some recent posts by others have answered that one – now, who was that regular PPRuNer who has a chain saw?
.
What you did not ask but which is surely also relevant is “why was the equipment not found in the wreckage?”:
I have answered this before in past posts but briefly here goes:
The nav racks must have been reasonably intact as the SuperTANS was recovered in such a condition that data was retrievable from it;
The site was insecure for at least 40 minutes after the crash (I have this directly from the police);
When challenged, by UK authorities when they did get to the site, as to why they were on the site, one American said that they were looking for their equipment;
There was a report (for which I have been unable to get confirmation or, in fact, any explanation from anyone) that the (RAF?) SIB had become aware of anomalies in the wiring (such that they were going to charge some technicians?) which I believe may point to the hurried/ inexpert removal of the module – wouldn’t it be nice if someone would come up and explain what this was all about?
.
Regarding your comment on the time taken to plan such a trial and the lack of knowledge of it amongst << family, close friends or colleagues of the crew >>: even the crew would not have had to be aware of it that much in advance and I am sure that a “need to know” approach was and is the norm on all operations. If you are at all familiar with the operational use of this equipment, you would understand that it would be no big deal to do an ad hoc trial with it – it is intrinsically reliable and accurate when used properly with the added safeguard that the person on the ground can talk the helicopter in as it approaches – however, it is very, very easy to misuse it, intentionally or accidentally (for example, if the operator on the ground was ½ a mile or so further up the hill than he was expected, by the aircrew, to be). Let’s think about a hypothetical situation: given that these systems were in use in other NATO countries long before the UK (particularly the US) an intelligence person who had had dealings with one of those countries (say, an MI6 man – overseas and all that) and was familiar with much of their equipment and operations could have seen the opportunity for an ad hoc trial of this particular system, knowing it was big feature of the HC2 and that there were personnel in the Mull area who were experienced in its use and had sets issued almost to a man – he wouldn’t have had to have been Einstein, it was really very obvious what could be done – it would have been easy to “sell” the idea to the team on board as the system would have been useful to some of their operations in the future.
.
You wrote<< I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly>>
I came to this site for answers, not to give them – I have presented (to the best of my ability) a theory that fits all that is known publicly and is reasonable to assume from the available data so far and, if correct, has such serious connotations that it should be explored thoroughly – I was hoping that the presentation of this theory would act as a catalyst to people who may not have thought of this aspect and who would then realise that they had useful input in either putting the theory to bed or exploring it further. I sincerely hope that I can be convincingly proven wrong – the world would be a better place.
As briefly as I can:
It was a simple mod – just about a plug and play with simple interfaces – the 47D avionics were designed with such systems in mind – I do not believe that the HC2 would have been different in this respect – why don’t you ask around about this system? – when it was first fitted, what was involved, etc? – then you can enlighten us all.
.
It could have been fitted immediately before the flight: work was done on the nav racks but no paper (F700) had been raised;
Regarding your comment << I will bet my right arm that if ANY of the groundcrew had kown of this it WOULD have come out by now >>,
Well I rather think some recent posts by others have answered that one – now, who was that regular PPRuNer who has a chain saw?
.
What you did not ask but which is surely also relevant is “why was the equipment not found in the wreckage?”:
I have answered this before in past posts but briefly here goes:
The nav racks must have been reasonably intact as the SuperTANS was recovered in such a condition that data was retrievable from it;
The site was insecure for at least 40 minutes after the crash (I have this directly from the police);
When challenged, by UK authorities when they did get to the site, as to why they were on the site, one American said that they were looking for their equipment;
There was a report (for which I have been unable to get confirmation or, in fact, any explanation from anyone) that the (RAF?) SIB had become aware of anomalies in the wiring (such that they were going to charge some technicians?) which I believe may point to the hurried/ inexpert removal of the module – wouldn’t it be nice if someone would come up and explain what this was all about?
.
Regarding your comment on the time taken to plan such a trial and the lack of knowledge of it amongst << family, close friends or colleagues of the crew >>: even the crew would not have had to be aware of it that much in advance and I am sure that a “need to know” approach was and is the norm on all operations. If you are at all familiar with the operational use of this equipment, you would understand that it would be no big deal to do an ad hoc trial with it – it is intrinsically reliable and accurate when used properly with the added safeguard that the person on the ground can talk the helicopter in as it approaches – however, it is very, very easy to misuse it, intentionally or accidentally (for example, if the operator on the ground was ½ a mile or so further up the hill than he was expected, by the aircrew, to be). Let’s think about a hypothetical situation: given that these systems were in use in other NATO countries long before the UK (particularly the US) an intelligence person who had had dealings with one of those countries (say, an MI6 man – overseas and all that) and was familiar with much of their equipment and operations could have seen the opportunity for an ad hoc trial of this particular system, knowing it was big feature of the HC2 and that there were personnel in the Mull area who were experienced in its use and had sets issued almost to a man – he wouldn’t have had to have been Einstein, it was really very obvious what could be done – it would have been easy to “sell” the idea to the team on board as the system would have been useful to some of their operations in the future.
.
You wrote<< I could go on asking questions you will never ever be able to answer convincingly>>
I came to this site for answers, not to give them – I have presented (to the best of my ability) a theory that fits all that is known publicly and is reasonable to assume from the available data so far and, if correct, has such serious connotations that it should be explored thoroughly – I was hoping that the presentation of this theory would act as a catalyst to people who may not have thought of this aspect and who would then realise that they had useful input in either putting the theory to bed or exploring it further. I sincerely hope that I can be convincingly proven wrong – the world would be a better place.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
Gallantry in adversity, and 'leaking' confidential information both require personal courage. The former is acceptable and can lead to decorations - after all, it's what decent chaps do. The latter tends to be frowned on (unless done by Ministers or their staffs) as 'non U', even if it is characterised as a disclosure in the public interest.
Recent VC recipients such as Johnson Beharry, H. Jones and Ian McKay spring to mind. But who remembers David Kelly, Clive Ponting, Richard Tomlinson and David Shayler?
I'm intrigued, to say the least, as to your theory of what caused the accident. It bears some resemblance to the plot of rather a good movie that I watched several years ago called ‘A Very British Coup’ - see http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/485767/index.html - in which the bureaucracy tries to resist the wishes of the elected Labour Government of the day, presided over by one Harry Perkins, steelworker from Sheffield.
Seriously, the Westminster system of Government is that the bureaucracy (including the military and security services) is always subject to lawful direction by the elected Government of the day. Are you saying that rogue elements in the security services were killed on the orders of senior officials because they (the rogue elements) intended to disregard the wishes of the elected Government of the day?
If so, then this is indeed a serious allegation. What admissible evidence do you have? What action have you taken to have this allegation investigated?
Gallantry in adversity, and 'leaking' confidential information both require personal courage. The former is acceptable and can lead to decorations - after all, it's what decent chaps do. The latter tends to be frowned on (unless done by Ministers or their staffs) as 'non U', even if it is characterised as a disclosure in the public interest.
Recent VC recipients such as Johnson Beharry, H. Jones and Ian McKay spring to mind. But who remembers David Kelly, Clive Ponting, Richard Tomlinson and David Shayler?
I'm intrigued, to say the least, as to your theory of what caused the accident. It bears some resemblance to the plot of rather a good movie that I watched several years ago called ‘A Very British Coup’ - see http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/485767/index.html - in which the bureaucracy tries to resist the wishes of the elected Labour Government of the day, presided over by one Harry Perkins, steelworker from Sheffield.
Seriously, the Westminster system of Government is that the bureaucracy (including the military and security services) is always subject to lawful direction by the elected Government of the day. Are you saying that rogue elements in the security services were killed on the orders of senior officials because they (the rogue elements) intended to disregard the wishes of the elected Government of the day?
If so, then this is indeed a serious allegation. What admissible evidence do you have? What action have you taken to have this allegation investigated?
Walter,
On June 5 meadowbank wrote:
Please explain why you do not accept this assurance.
On June 5 meadowbank wrote:
Walter
Whether or not certain equipment was or was not subsequently delivered is irrelevant. The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor. For, I hope, total clarification, what I meant by "or any other Chinook Mk2" is that no Chinook Mk2 was fitted with such equipment at the time of the accident. Finding out, even "just for interest, say" is a waste of time - something fitted to the aircraft (if it was) after the accident is as relevant as saying that it was snowing in Luxembourg the morning after the accident.
Whether or not certain equipment was or was not subsequently delivered is irrelevant. The only important point connected to your pet theory is that the equipment you describe was not fitted to ZD576 at the time of the accident and cannot have been even a contributory factor. For, I hope, total clarification, what I meant by "or any other Chinook Mk2" is that no Chinook Mk2 was fitted with such equipment at the time of the accident. Finding out, even "just for interest, say" is a waste of time - something fitted to the aircraft (if it was) after the accident is as relevant as saying that it was snowing in Luxembourg the morning after the accident.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse,
I think we are now past logic with this man as he is simly unable to explain how his conspiricy theory came to pass. Simply stating this mod was " just about a plug and play with simple interfaces " does not explain how and by whom it was fitted, it's a question he cannot answer simply because it never happened.
He also can't explain how not one single person in the maintenance chain, command chain or the four crew members family, friends or colleagues chain knew a thing about this.
It's because of his inability to show a single credible shred of evidence to support his theory that I continue to question him on this matter. All he has produced so far is smoke and mirrors which, despite countless posts from eminantly qualified people that he simply ignores, have not offered us one conclusive piece of evidence.
Walter I asked you 5 fairly specific questions of which you have answered none, I have a chain saw but will leave it in the garage until you can give me a satisfactory reply...............I think it will remain safely tucked away for all time
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
I think we are now past logic with this man as he is simly unable to explain how his conspiricy theory came to pass. Simply stating this mod was " just about a plug and play with simple interfaces " does not explain how and by whom it was fitted, it's a question he cannot answer simply because it never happened.
He also can't explain how not one single person in the maintenance chain, command chain or the four crew members family, friends or colleagues chain knew a thing about this.
It's because of his inability to show a single credible shred of evidence to support his theory that I continue to question him on this matter. All he has produced so far is smoke and mirrors which, despite countless posts from eminantly qualified people that he simply ignores, have not offered us one conclusive piece of evidence.
Walter I asked you 5 fairly specific questions of which you have answered none, I have a chain saw but will leave it in the garage until you can give me a satisfactory reply...............I think it will remain safely tucked away for all time
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different approach
Has anyone else been struck by the difference in approach to background factors between the Chinook BOI and the Sgt Roberts BoI.
The Roberts BoI seems pretty robust regarding the procurement of ECBA.
EG
The Roberts BoI seems pretty robust regarding the procurement of ECBA.
EG
You mean your own simple postulation - of which there is no proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, I guess?
The only people who really know are the deceased crew - neither you, me, Weird Wally or his little green SEALs know what really happened. Neither do Wratten or Day.
Hence the whole raison d'etre of the campaign.........
The only people who really know are the deceased crew - neither you, me, Weird Wally or his little green SEALs know what really happened. Neither do Wratten or Day.
Hence the whole raison d'etre of the campaign.........
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter's latest post is a prime example of the outrageous nonsense that is encouraged by ignoring a simple explanation for this tragedy. John Purdey
Walter's latest post is a prime example of the outrageous nonsense that is encouraged by ignoring your simple explanation for this tragedy, which is similarly unfounded in fact
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
BAgle, Tandemrotor, Pulse1;
Fine, just ignore the obvious, and continue to deal with; an IRA plot to seduce the crew into the hillside; or an attempted military coup (if I understand W's posts correctly); or an unknown, unrepeatable, fugitive technical fault which seized the aircraft systems for about 20 seconds between waypoint change and impact, but them which vanished three secondes before impact leaving no post-impact evidence; or the effect of missing breakfast; (I am ignoring the possibiliy of little green men suddenly appearing in the cockpit of course) . Take your choice.
JP
Fine, just ignore the obvious, and continue to deal with; an IRA plot to seduce the crew into the hillside; or an attempted military coup (if I understand W's posts correctly); or an unknown, unrepeatable, fugitive technical fault which seized the aircraft systems for about 20 seconds between waypoint change and impact, but them which vanished three secondes before impact leaving no post-impact evidence; or the effect of missing breakfast; (I am ignoring the possibiliy of little green men suddenly appearing in the cockpit of course) . Take your choice.
JP
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Simple question, think about it before you reply and consider as Beag's states that the only people who KNOW what happened are dead, on a scale of 1 to a 100 where would you put your certainty that you are right.
As I see it you have four choices:-
a, simply ignore the question but that gives very little credibility to your arguement and as you do like to have your say
keeping shtumm is not really in keeping is it!
b, spin your reply to not directly answer the question but continue to state your, somewhat flawed position
c, state categorically that you are 100% certain that your version of events actually happened, which will make you look rather stoopid as there is no one alive who actually knows what happened that day
d, state your certainty is less than 100%, which is what any sane and responsible person would state, but as that rather shoots
you in the foot it's not an answer you can give.
I do look forward to your response
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Simple question, think about it before you reply and consider as Beag's states that the only people who KNOW what happened are dead, on a scale of 1 to a 100 where would you put your certainty that you are right.
As I see it you have four choices:-
a, simply ignore the question but that gives very little credibility to your arguement and as you do like to have your say
keeping shtumm is not really in keeping is it!
b, spin your reply to not directly answer the question but continue to state your, somewhat flawed position
c, state categorically that you are 100% certain that your version of events actually happened, which will make you look rather stoopid as there is no one alive who actually knows what happened that day
d, state your certainty is less than 100%, which is what any sane and responsible person would state, but as that rather shoots
you in the foot it's not an answer you can give.
I do look forward to your response
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 4th Aug 2006 at 18:04.