Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
The forecast surface wind for the North Channel was 150 degrees 12-18 kts, the 2000 ft wind forecast was 190 degrees 25 kts. The wind at take-off from Aldergrove was given as 170 degrees 10 kts. The forecast winds give a tail component of 9.2 kts at the surface and 24.5 kts at 2000 ft. The average groundspeed from the ATC fix on leaving the CTZ to impact was 158.0 kts. All sightings of the aircraft, and there were a large number of eyewitness reports of the aircraft over Antrim, reported the aircraft at very low level, typically at 100 ft AGL.
PS
The "positive fix" at 16:46:24 was from Aldergrove ATC giving the aircrafts position as 027 Degrees magnetic and 7 NM from the Aldergrove beacon. That fix was, of course, on tape.
Given that the Yachtsman estimated the height of the aircraft as 200-400 ft, a "significant tailwind" at the estimated height would have been reflected at the surface and given rise to possible gale conditions. Moreover, they had only approximately 2.1 NM to impact which occurred at a calculated groundspeed of 162.8 kts: which compares with the AAIB conclusion from their wreckage and crash site inspection that the groundspeed at intial impact was "of the order of 150 kts".
PPS
The difference between the "calculated" groundspeed and that recorded by AAIB is explained by a last minute manoeuvre to avoid impact by rapid application of aft cyclic stick. If applied to the difference in the groundspeeds a derived instantaneous flight path angle of +23 degrees climb is obtained.
The forecast surface wind for the North Channel was 150 degrees 12-18 kts, the 2000 ft wind forecast was 190 degrees 25 kts. The wind at take-off from Aldergrove was given as 170 degrees 10 kts. The forecast winds give a tail component of 9.2 kts at the surface and 24.5 kts at 2000 ft. The average groundspeed from the ATC fix on leaving the CTZ to impact was 158.0 kts. All sightings of the aircraft, and there were a large number of eyewitness reports of the aircraft over Antrim, reported the aircraft at very low level, typically at 100 ft AGL.
PS
The "positive fix" at 16:46:24 was from Aldergrove ATC giving the aircrafts position as 027 Degrees magnetic and 7 NM from the Aldergrove beacon. That fix was, of course, on tape.
Given that the Yachtsman estimated the height of the aircraft as 200-400 ft, a "significant tailwind" at the estimated height would have been reflected at the surface and given rise to possible gale conditions. Moreover, they had only approximately 2.1 NM to impact which occurred at a calculated groundspeed of 162.8 kts: which compares with the AAIB conclusion from their wreckage and crash site inspection that the groundspeed at intial impact was "of the order of 150 kts".
PPS
The difference between the "calculated" groundspeed and that recorded by AAIB is explained by a last minute manoeuvre to avoid impact by rapid application of aft cyclic stick. If applied to the difference in the groundspeeds a derived instantaneous flight path angle of +23 degrees climb is obtained.
Last edited by cazatou; 7th Aug 2006 at 14:32.
vincit veritas
Cazatou
Your recent post addressed to Tandemrotor leaves many questions unanswered.
The weather conditions en route are all forecast (not actual).
The ATC fix is, of course, not that accurate by modern standards.
The altitude of the aircraft by all witnesses are estimates.
The groundspeed is a ‘calculated guess’ derived from imprecise data.
Hardly a ‘without doubt whatsoever’ scenario, is it?
I could go on and on but I think we have all been there too many times already.
Your recent post addressed to Tandemrotor leaves many questions unanswered.
The weather conditions en route are all forecast (not actual).
The ATC fix is, of course, not that accurate by modern standards.
The altitude of the aircraft by all witnesses are estimates.
The groundspeed is a ‘calculated guess’ derived from imprecise data.
Hardly a ‘without doubt whatsoever’ scenario, is it?
I could go on and on but I think we have all been there too many times already.
Last edited by XM147; 7th Aug 2006 at 19:10.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
YES, got it in one.
I trust we will not have a major war in the next few decades; the deductive powers of some of the contributors to this thread astound me.
PS
Sorry for the time lapse; I will try to do better next time.
YES, got it in one.
I trust we will not have a major war in the next few decades; the deductive powers of some of the contributors to this thread astound me.
PS
Sorry for the time lapse; I will try to do better next time.
cazatou,
Is this another case of your use of selected information to distort the truth?
I can't say I know the area but I am sure that a direct track from Aldergrove to the Mull passes over some pretty high ground. Surely they would have been at a much higher altitude over most of Antrim, even at 100 ft AGL? The wind could therefore have been at the higher level over that sector.
there were a large number of eyewitness reports of the aircraft over Antrim, reported the aircraft at very low level, typically at 100 ft AGL.
I can't say I know the area but I am sure that a direct track from Aldergrove to the Mull passes over some pretty high ground. Surely they would have been at a much higher altitude over most of Antrim, even at 100 ft AGL? The wind could therefore have been at the higher level over that sector.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on pulse.
cazatou (K52) doesn't want anyone exposing the inaccuracies of his 'back of a fag packet' guesses, with which he seems to expect us to believe he has satisfied the standard of proof (absolutely no doubt whatsoever) required!
cazatou (K52) doesn't want anyone exposing the inaccuracies of his 'back of a fag packet' guesses, with which he seems to expect us to believe he has satisfied the standard of proof (absolutely no doubt whatsoever) required!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
I hate to disappoint you, but there is no "Fag packet". The calculations are taken from the final MOD submission to the HOL Committee in which they reject the Committee's conclusion.
May I suggest you read it?
I hate to disappoint you, but there is no "Fag packet". The calculations are taken from the final MOD submission to the HOL Committee in which they reject the Committee's conclusion.
May I suggest you read it?
tandemrotor,
I do agree that you do cazatou an injustice by suggesting his "fag packet" calculations. I believe that his contributions are far more calculating, and possibly sinister, than that.
Throughout his long contributions to this forum as K52 and cazatou he has made sweeping statements (accusations?) which, when challenged, he eventually walks away from. Then, months, or even years later, he throws out the same statement to make his case. And around we go again.
Notable subjects which have received this treatment by him, and also jp to a lesser extent, have included:
They should have climbed to safety altitude - ignoring icing limits of the HC2 at that time.
Implying that they were in IMC at waypoint change when the only known IMC was at the lighthouse which was in cloud.
Implying that Fl Lt Tapper did not have breakfast because he didn't have it in the mess with the other crew members, ignoring local SFH facilities.
And now, implying that flying at 100' AGL at sea level is the same as 100' AGL at an altitude of 1500' as far as wind velocity is concerned, supporting his claim that they were flying at high speed.
Last week, jp said that there was no evidence of any technical problem which could support those who think that ZH576 was out of control at some time prior to the accident. Yet, when reminded that control jamming by pallet springs could not be ruled out by the AAIB et al, he walks away from it. No doubt he will say it again at some later date.
The question which intrigues me is why they both persist in this type of argument. If it wasn't for them, this thread would only be used for its original purpose which was to act as a means of communication for the Campaign for Justice (ignoring Wally), and would be quite quiet except for those times when our support is particularly needed by the Campaign.
So, are they just retired RAF pilots desperately trying to keep in touch with their past by mischievously airing their knowledge in this way, or are they stooges of the establishment trying to wear us all down? It was interesting that, just as jp walked away from his latest argument, cazatou stepped straight in to take up the cause. Collusion maybe?
Whatever their aim maybe, all they seem to be achieving is continual exposure of the nature of the injustice suffered by the deceased and their families.
I do agree that you do cazatou an injustice by suggesting his "fag packet" calculations. I believe that his contributions are far more calculating, and possibly sinister, than that.
Throughout his long contributions to this forum as K52 and cazatou he has made sweeping statements (accusations?) which, when challenged, he eventually walks away from. Then, months, or even years later, he throws out the same statement to make his case. And around we go again.
Notable subjects which have received this treatment by him, and also jp to a lesser extent, have included:
They should have climbed to safety altitude - ignoring icing limits of the HC2 at that time.
Implying that they were in IMC at waypoint change when the only known IMC was at the lighthouse which was in cloud.
Implying that Fl Lt Tapper did not have breakfast because he didn't have it in the mess with the other crew members, ignoring local SFH facilities.
And now, implying that flying at 100' AGL at sea level is the same as 100' AGL at an altitude of 1500' as far as wind velocity is concerned, supporting his claim that they were flying at high speed.
Last week, jp said that there was no evidence of any technical problem which could support those who think that ZH576 was out of control at some time prior to the accident. Yet, when reminded that control jamming by pallet springs could not be ruled out by the AAIB et al, he walks away from it. No doubt he will say it again at some later date.
The question which intrigues me is why they both persist in this type of argument. If it wasn't for them, this thread would only be used for its original purpose which was to act as a means of communication for the Campaign for Justice (ignoring Wally), and would be quite quiet except for those times when our support is particularly needed by the Campaign.
So, are they just retired RAF pilots desperately trying to keep in touch with their past by mischievously airing their knowledge in this way, or are they stooges of the establishment trying to wear us all down? It was interesting that, just as jp walked away from his latest argument, cazatou stepped straight in to take up the cause. Collusion maybe?
Whatever their aim maybe, all they seem to be achieving is continual exposure of the nature of the injustice suffered by the deceased and their families.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse1, I agree.
To the rest of you [and you know who I'm talking about] give it a rest - if you want to speculate further, I suggest you start your own thread and leave this thread uncluttered with irrelevancies to allow important campaign stuff to stand out.
FJJP
To the rest of you [and you know who I'm talking about] give it a rest - if you want to speculate further, I suggest you start your own thread and leave this thread uncluttered with irrelevancies to allow important campaign stuff to stand out.
FJJP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse1, and cazatou (K52)
I agree.
It isn't cazatou (K52)'s 'back of a fag packet' guess, it is in fact the MOD's 'back of a fag packet' guess!
Fair enough.
If only there was a RECORD of the aircraft's airspeed, none of us would have to lower ourselves to such guesses now would we!
I agree.
It isn't cazatou (K52)'s 'back of a fag packet' guess, it is in fact the MOD's 'back of a fag packet' guess!
Fair enough.
If only there was a RECORD of the aircraft's airspeed, none of us would have to lower ourselves to such guesses now would we!
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week, jp said that there was no evidence of any technical problem which could support those who think that ZH576 was out of control at some time prior to the accident. Yet, when reminded that control jamming by pallet springs could not be ruled out by the AAIB et al, he walks away from it. No doubt he will say it again at some later date.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Granite
By the tenor of your post, you seem grossly to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies in this case. JP is not correct: The burden lay on Wratten and Day to prove that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever." Therefore, it is not for us to prove that control jamming (or any other possible cause) was the cause of the tragedy, it was for the reviewing officers to prove that no cause(s) other than gross negligence by the crew resulted in the tragedy.
By the tenor of your post, you seem grossly to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies in this case. JP is not correct: The burden lay on Wratten and Day to prove that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever." Therefore, it is not for us to prove that control jamming (or any other possible cause) was the cause of the tragedy, it was for the reviewing officers to prove that no cause(s) other than gross negligence by the crew resulted in the tragedy.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
<< If only there was a RECORD of the aircraft's airspeed, none of us would have to lower ourselves to such guesses now would we!>>
.
You have the time of the fix from Aldergrove and the time of the crash;
you have the distance traveled in between;
a bit of uncertainty on the precise position of the a/c with the Aldergrove fix would not throw the calculations out significantly over the distance of that leg to the Mull;
the average speed this gives is just what you would expect for cruising for this type at its altitude, weight, etc the speed at impact being the result of this cruising speed boosted by the increased tailwind in the proximity of the headland.
The simple conclusion is that they had not slowed down at any significant distance from the Mull – which would have required some significant high speed later and closer to make up – rather, they simply were taken by surprise by the proximity of the landmass, the last 4 seconds of manoeuvre (which would have coincided with their passing over the shoreline) reinforcing this simple situation.
What is so complicated about this?
.
In general, the tactic of challenging any attempt to fix any basic parameters of this flight in support of the mantra that nothing can be known beyond any doubt whatsoever is counterproductive – it has not got anywhere in 12 years – surely the establishment of the most likely flight profile, most likely local weather conditions, etc, etc, etc could reduce the problem of analysis such that a cause could become apparent. While you may think that this risks confirming the pilots’ negligence you must realize that their case cannot be worse than as it stands now - as I have posted before, even in the absence of any extra tasking I do not believe that an error of judgment in approaching the Mull constitutes gross negligence – they were not breaking any rules in the conditions as has been put forward in this debate.
And of course, if they were ordered to undertake a special task, then the whole question is wide open to fresh inquiry which would surely clear them completely and even lead to real justice.
<< If only there was a RECORD of the aircraft's airspeed, none of us would have to lower ourselves to such guesses now would we!>>
.
You have the time of the fix from Aldergrove and the time of the crash;
you have the distance traveled in between;
a bit of uncertainty on the precise position of the a/c with the Aldergrove fix would not throw the calculations out significantly over the distance of that leg to the Mull;
the average speed this gives is just what you would expect for cruising for this type at its altitude, weight, etc the speed at impact being the result of this cruising speed boosted by the increased tailwind in the proximity of the headland.
The simple conclusion is that they had not slowed down at any significant distance from the Mull – which would have required some significant high speed later and closer to make up – rather, they simply were taken by surprise by the proximity of the landmass, the last 4 seconds of manoeuvre (which would have coincided with their passing over the shoreline) reinforcing this simple situation.
What is so complicated about this?
.
In general, the tactic of challenging any attempt to fix any basic parameters of this flight in support of the mantra that nothing can be known beyond any doubt whatsoever is counterproductive – it has not got anywhere in 12 years – surely the establishment of the most likely flight profile, most likely local weather conditions, etc, etc, etc could reduce the problem of analysis such that a cause could become apparent. While you may think that this risks confirming the pilots’ negligence you must realize that their case cannot be worse than as it stands now - as I have posted before, even in the absence of any extra tasking I do not believe that an error of judgment in approaching the Mull constitutes gross negligence – they were not breaking any rules in the conditions as has been put forward in this debate.
And of course, if they were ordered to undertake a special task, then the whole question is wide open to fresh inquiry which would surely clear them completely and even lead to real justice.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Yawn.......... Works only if you fly in a straight line at the same speed, otherwise useless. Who cares what the average speed was anyway? All of this "in my opinion/this must have happened" (must it or did it?) just goes to back up the majority. Yes, they might have been/probably were negligent, but who knows? = doubt = verdict change...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by An Teallach
Green Granite
By the tenor of your post, you seem grossly to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies in this case. JP is not correct: The burden lay on Wratten and Day to prove that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever." Therefore, it is not for us to prove that control jamming (or any other possible cause) was the cause of the tragedy, it was for the reviewing officers to prove that no cause(s) other than gross negligence by the crew resulted in the tragedy.
By the tenor of your post, you seem grossly to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies in this case. JP is not correct: The burden lay on Wratten and Day to prove that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever." Therefore, it is not for us to prove that control jamming (or any other possible cause) was the cause of the tragedy, it was for the reviewing officers to prove that no cause(s) other than gross negligence by the crew resulted in the tragedy.
I am quite aware of the issue here and I agree that there is no evidence that the crew were grossly negligent "beyond any doubt whatsoever."
on the other hand there is no evidence that they were not, therefore the benifit of doubt must go to the air crew.
Conjecture is not evidence but a lot of people here seem to think that if they repeat things often enough it will become so.
green granite,
Hopefully, to put this one to bed:
The evidence was the detached pallet springs. FACT.
The interpretation of that evidence is that:
a) they were detached during the impact - probably the most likely one.
OR:
b) they were detached before impact - quite possible as a previous occurrence with this particular aircraft was under investigation.
To say that there was no evidence is illogical, inaccurate and a disingenuous spin of reality.
As cazatou said earlier,
Hopefully, to put this one to bed:
The evidence was the detached pallet springs. FACT.
The interpretation of that evidence is that:
a) they were detached during the impact - probably the most likely one.
OR:
b) they were detached before impact - quite possible as a previous occurrence with this particular aircraft was under investigation.
To say that there was no evidence is illogical, inaccurate and a disingenuous spin of reality.
As cazatou said earlier,
the deductive powers of some of the contributors to this thread astound me.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG
No, I'm not paranoid. I fully accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: I have used the phrase umpteen times in this forum. The key words in my post were: "where the burden of proof lies in this case."
In fact, proof by the revewing officers that no possible causes other than gross negligence resulted in the tragedy would still have been insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof. They would still have needed to produce definitive evidence of gross negligence by the crew.
No, I'm not paranoid. I fully accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: I have used the phrase umpteen times in this forum. The key words in my post were: "where the burden of proof lies in this case."
In fact, proof by the revewing officers that no possible causes other than gross negligence resulted in the tragedy would still have been insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof. They would still have needed to produce definitive evidence of gross negligence by the crew.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pulse1
green granite,
Hopefully, to put this one to bed:
The evidence was the detached pallet springs. FACT.
The interpretation of that evidence is that:
a) they were detached during the impact - probably the most likely one.
OR:
b) they were detached before impact - quite possible as a previous occurrence with this particular aircraft was under investigation.
To say that there was no evidence is illogical, inaccurate and a disingenuous spin of reality.
As cazatou said earlier,
Hopefully, to put this one to bed:
The evidence was the detached pallet springs. FACT.
The interpretation of that evidence is that:
a) they were detached during the impact - probably the most likely one.
OR:
b) they were detached before impact - quite possible as a previous occurrence with this particular aircraft was under investigation.
To say that there was no evidence is illogical, inaccurate and a disingenuous spin of reality.
As cazatou said earlier,
green granite,
I am glad that we agree. The problem is that, as a scientist, I see a big difference between evidence and proof. To me, evidence is the building material for proof and I get very frustrated when a single piece of evidence is treated as proof. As far as jp is concerned, it is more of a case that he dismisses inconvenient evidence because it is not proof. It is interesting that the history of scientific development, especially in medicine, shows many instances where progress has been delayed by similar thinking. Sadly there are also many cases where the opposite is true.
Sorry to ramble but I hope that I have made my point.
I am glad that we agree. The problem is that, as a scientist, I see a big difference between evidence and proof. To me, evidence is the building material for proof and I get very frustrated when a single piece of evidence is treated as proof. As far as jp is concerned, it is more of a case that he dismisses inconvenient evidence because it is not proof. It is interesting that the history of scientific development, especially in medicine, shows many instances where progress has been delayed by similar thinking. Sadly there are also many cases where the opposite is true.
Sorry to ramble but I hope that I have made my point.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that as you say pulse1 The difference between evidence and proof is an area which many people have differing views In my case the term " there is evidence that X caused the crash" means that there is also proof of that fact, the term "there is evidence that X may have caused the crash" means that it's a probability approaching 1 but is not proven. It all comes down to the use and interpretation of the English language.
I for one am guilty of sloppy english quite frequently, I know what I mean but other people put a different interpretation upon it.
I for one am guilty of sloppy english quite frequently, I know what I mean but other people put a different interpretation upon it.