Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jin,
Applaud you sentiments however the continuing debate with JP and the Cat in conjunction with the ET's brother and his conspiricy theory at least keeps this thread at the top of the page!
Wally Wally Wally,
"If this is what a fool has been doing, what have you contributed in these last 12 years? – in anticipation of the answer, what does that make you?"
It makes me a sensible and rational human being, who faced with a whole host of informed information has arrived at the blindingly obvious conclusion that you are indeed in need of therapy
Walter you are incorrect, you always have been and always will be, unless you can now prove me wrong
.............did'nt think so f@ckwit
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Applaud you sentiments however the continuing debate with JP and the Cat in conjunction with the ET's brother and his conspiricy theory at least keeps this thread at the top of the page!
Wally Wally Wally,
"If this is what a fool has been doing, what have you contributed in these last 12 years? – in anticipation of the answer, what does that make you?"
It makes me a sensible and rational human being, who faced with a whole host of informed information has arrived at the blindingly obvious conclusion that you are indeed in need of therapy
Walter you are incorrect, you always have been and always will be, unless you can now prove me wrong
.............did'nt think so f@ckwit all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
Then you 'read' something that was not there!
You (yet again) have made an analysis which is not based in fact!
You really must try to be more accurate.
It seems the members of the BOI were more consciencous with their 'facts' (or more accurately, lack of them!) than you.
I can still remember the sense of disbelief at the findings of the Investigative Board. To read that, according to the Board, at waypoint change the Chinook was in cloud and the pilots were not flying in accordance with VFR
You (yet again) have made an analysis which is not based in fact!
You really must try to be more accurate.
To then read that, having made that finding, the BOI were unable venture an opinion with regard to "Human Failings" beggared belief.
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
Standard route...... mmmmmm. What standard route would this be then?? Seeing as this was not a regular route, in fact it was very irregular, where do we get this from?
Look chaps, we've got weird Wally and his little green SEALs running around with their wacky wirelesses, some ex-corgi carrier saying they crashed because they didn't have a trucky breakfast......
Can we can such nonsense, once and for all.
The only folk who know what actually happened are dead. No-one - neither the weird conspiracy, IMC/VMC nor gastronautical theorists knows beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, neither did Day nor Wratten.
The verdict was, and still is, totally unreasonable and must be overturned.
Can we can such nonsense, once and for all.
The only folk who know what actually happened are dead. No-one - neither the weird conspiracy, IMC/VMC nor gastronautical theorists knows beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, neither did Day nor Wratten.
The verdict was, and still is, totally unreasonable and must be overturned.
jindabyne,
If that is true, and it may well be, the diversionary arguments are being maintained by three (?) contributors and one must question their motives:
Wally, who refuses to explain why he does not accept jayteeto's and tucemsehs assurance that no such equipment was fitted.
Cazatou and john purdey who, as Walter in one of his more lucid moments said, "have made statements that, at face value, should have ended it but have not backed those statements up with background information that would make them convincing, especially when the person making such statements has said something else previously with equal confidence that has proven to be wrong."
Cazatou's last post is typical of the ways he keeps these circular arguments going, by making wild and inaccurate statements, and one must question either his intelligence or his ulterior motives.
For me, all three have discredited themselves and their arguments and, for what it is worth, have made me more determined than ever to do all I can to get this perverse judgement changed.
Those within the estabishment will surely be wringing their hands with glee over the never-ending and diversionary arguments that we see on a daily basis.
Wally, who refuses to explain why he does not accept jayteeto's and tucemsehs assurance that no such equipment was fitted.
Cazatou and john purdey who, as Walter in one of his more lucid moments said, "have made statements that, at face value, should have ended it but have not backed those statements up with background information that would make them convincing, especially when the person making such statements has said something else previously with equal confidence that has proven to be wrong."
Cazatou's last post is typical of the ways he keeps these circular arguments going, by making wild and inaccurate statements, and one must question either his intelligence or his ulterior motives.
For me, all three have discredited themselves and their arguments and, for what it is worth, have made me more determined than ever to do all I can to get this perverse judgement changed.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1,
Were you reading the BOI for "the n'th time" or the synopsis issued by IFS? My recollection is the the BOI (with annexes) was about 9 inches thick.
My quote came from the final submission from MOD to the HOL Select Committee Section 2 Para 8.
Were you reading the BOI for "the n'th time" or the synopsis issued by IFS? My recollection is the the BOI (with annexes) was about 9 inches thick.
My quote came from the final submission from MOD to the HOL Select Committee Section 2 Para 8.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD Quote
Catazou,
I see you are still not prepared to take up the challenge of providing your opinion as to what might have happened if something else had gone wrong at around the time of the WP change - you could take your pick from any of the problems mentioned in the BoI.
Please tell me where I can find the MOD statement that the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the WP change - I have looked at the MOD evidence linked to the HofL Report but cannot find this. Are you quoting from a different web-site?
Thanks.
JB
I see you are still not prepared to take up the challenge of providing your opinion as to what might have happened if something else had gone wrong at around the time of the WP change - you could take your pick from any of the problems mentioned in the BoI.
Please tell me where I can find the MOD statement that the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the WP change - I have looked at the MOD evidence linked to the HofL Report but cannot find this. Are you quoting from a different web-site?
Thanks.
JB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley,
Sir,
House of Lords Hansard Record of Proceedings for the Select Committee. The document itself (less header pages) is 23 pages in length and dated 22 July 2002. It is available on the HOL website.
Section 6 para's 12-15 deal with the "Determination of Negligence".
Sir,
House of Lords Hansard Record of Proceedings for the Select Committee. The document itself (less header pages) is 23 pages in length and dated 22 July 2002. It is available on the HOL website.
Section 6 para's 12-15 deal with the "Determination of Negligence".
Last edited by cazatou; 18th Aug 2006 at 14:28.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
Notwithstanding any 'statement' by the MOD. Would you please direct me to the evidence that would support an allegation that:
I put it to you, such factual evidence simply does not exist.
Prove me wrong. PLEASE!
Notwithstanding any 'statement' by the MOD. Would you please direct me to the evidence that would support an allegation that:
at waypoint change the Chinook was in cloud and the pilots were not flying in accordance with VFR
Prove me wrong. PLEASE!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 18th Aug 2006 at 14:56.
Just a numbered other
Caz:
Pulse 1:
Caz:
Dated 2002.
Please invite me around as a houseguest Caz, so I can inspect your time machine.
It would have been March 1995 when I first read the BOI, and I can still remember the sense of disbelief at the findings of the Investigative Board. To read that, according to the Board, at waypoint change the Chinook was in cloud and the pilots were not flying in accordance with VFR;
I've just read the BOI for the nth time and cannot find where it says that "at waypoint change the Chinook was in cloud and the pilots were not flying in accordance with VFR"
Unless this is yet another of your wild statements, please elaborate. p1
Unless this is yet another of your wild statements, please elaborate. p1
My quote came from the final submission from MOD to the HOL Select Committee Section 2 Para 8.
Please invite me around as a houseguest Caz, so I can inspect your time machine.
HOL Select Committee Conclusion:
161. There is however no evidence to establish (a) the time of the way point change, (b) the height of the aircraft at the way point change, (c) the position of the aircraft when at the recorded height, (d) the course and speed of the aircraft at either of the two foregoing events or indeed at any time prior to impact, nor (e) that the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the height recording. Given the evidence of Mr Holbrook that the cloud was hugging the land, the fact that it was at or below 300 feet at the lighthouse throws no light on conditions prevailing either at the way point change or at the unknown position of the aircraft to seaward some 15 to 18 seconds before impact.
161. There is however no evidence to establish (a) the time of the way point change, (b) the height of the aircraft at the way point change, (c) the position of the aircraft when at the recorded height, (d) the course and speed of the aircraft at either of the two foregoing events or indeed at any time prior to impact, nor (e) that the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the height recording. Given the evidence of Mr Holbrook that the cloud was hugging the land, the fact that it was at or below 300 feet at the lighthouse throws no light on conditions prevailing either at the way point change or at the unknown position of the aircraft to seaward some 15 to 18 seconds before impact.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne
<<The posts are boring and repetitive … and do nothing to persuade MoD to re-examine the issues.>>
They are supposed to help the campaign group get a fuller picture so that they can have something new with which to approach the MOD.
.
<<Sorry to sound negative, but I think we're not moving forward of late.>>
The recent posts concerning the cruise climb alone are surely progress.
Was not the rate of climb being judged as to be inappropriate to clear the Mull a significant consideration of the BOI in blaming the pilots?
The point has been made that the cruise climb that they had selected was so patently wrong for clearing the Mull that this could not have been their intention - let me explain again:
Had they been intending to climb into IMC and cross the Mull, they would have become dependent upon the SuperTANS for much of their navigation in the forthcoming conditions;
they would have been mindful of the potential errors of the SuperTANS after a sea crossing and so would have erred on the side of caution, adding at least ½ a mile to the distance to the Mull as derived from the SuperTANS;
they would presumably have calculated how far away from the Mull they would have had to be to get to SALT when they got there at their intended rate of climb – and if they intended using cruise climb (so as not to lose speed) this distance would have been several miles;
when you add these distances together, you will see that they would have had to have selected cruise climb about 2 minutes before that final 20 seconds if it had been their intention to overfly the Mull using cruise climb – well before waypoint change and therefore well before the window of opportunity for any of the suggested transient control problems – and this adds a further 2 minutes that any distraction would have needed to have kept them distracted;
the time that they actually initiated cruise climb was not only so much later than this time that it could not have been a simple error but they would have also have been way past the starting point for such a climb according to the SuperTANS – this time is more than enough for two such experienced pilots (and possibly an experienced LM also looking on) to have reacted intuitively to getting so close (according to the SuperTANS) at a low rate of climb – the official conclusion is, as the Stn Cdr rightly said, “incredible”.
.
Therefore, I am saying that cruise climb being selected was not at all an indication that they were intending to overfly the Mull – indeed, it is as close as we can get to proof that it was not their intention.
And therefore does this not show the BOI to be wrong in its simplistic conclusion that an inappropriate rate of climb was chosen?
I call this progress.
.
jayteeto
<<Standard route...... mmmmmm. What standard route would this be then?? Seeing as this was not a regular route, in fact it was very irregular, where do we get this from?>>
I think I have given an answer to this a long time ago – as I recall, at least one of the witnesses at one of the inquiries described such a route so and the light house keeper told me how regular such passes were while I stood on the Mull with him witnessing one. It would also seem a logical route for such a trip, would it not?
<<The posts are boring and repetitive … and do nothing to persuade MoD to re-examine the issues.>>
They are supposed to help the campaign group get a fuller picture so that they can have something new with which to approach the MOD.
.
<<Sorry to sound negative, but I think we're not moving forward of late.>>
The recent posts concerning the cruise climb alone are surely progress.
Was not the rate of climb being judged as to be inappropriate to clear the Mull a significant consideration of the BOI in blaming the pilots?
The point has been made that the cruise climb that they had selected was so patently wrong for clearing the Mull that this could not have been their intention - let me explain again:
Had they been intending to climb into IMC and cross the Mull, they would have become dependent upon the SuperTANS for much of their navigation in the forthcoming conditions;
they would have been mindful of the potential errors of the SuperTANS after a sea crossing and so would have erred on the side of caution, adding at least ½ a mile to the distance to the Mull as derived from the SuperTANS;
they would presumably have calculated how far away from the Mull they would have had to be to get to SALT when they got there at their intended rate of climb – and if they intended using cruise climb (so as not to lose speed) this distance would have been several miles;
when you add these distances together, you will see that they would have had to have selected cruise climb about 2 minutes before that final 20 seconds if it had been their intention to overfly the Mull using cruise climb – well before waypoint change and therefore well before the window of opportunity for any of the suggested transient control problems – and this adds a further 2 minutes that any distraction would have needed to have kept them distracted;
the time that they actually initiated cruise climb was not only so much later than this time that it could not have been a simple error but they would have also have been way past the starting point for such a climb according to the SuperTANS – this time is more than enough for two such experienced pilots (and possibly an experienced LM also looking on) to have reacted intuitively to getting so close (according to the SuperTANS) at a low rate of climb – the official conclusion is, as the Stn Cdr rightly said, “incredible”.
.
Therefore, I am saying that cruise climb being selected was not at all an indication that they were intending to overfly the Mull – indeed, it is as close as we can get to proof that it was not their intention.
And therefore does this not show the BOI to be wrong in its simplistic conclusion that an inappropriate rate of climb was chosen?
I call this progress.
.
jayteeto
<<Standard route...... mmmmmm. What standard route would this be then?? Seeing as this was not a regular route, in fact it was very irregular, where do we get this from?>>
I think I have given an answer to this a long time ago – as I recall, at least one of the witnesses at one of the inquiries described such a route so and the light house keeper told me how regular such passes were while I stood on the Mull with him witnessing one. It would also seem a logical route for such a trip, would it not?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
The fact that you saw a Chinook overfly the Mull and the Keeper sees them often does NOT mean that the aircraft was part of the NI Detatchment. Whilst Mainland based aircraft might fly that route regularly that would not be the case for NI based aircraft.
Ark Royal
Sorry, you lost me there. What part did you not understand?
The fact that you saw a Chinook overfly the Mull and the Keeper sees them often does NOT mean that the aircraft was part of the NI Detatchment. Whilst Mainland based aircraft might fly that route regularly that would not be the case for NI based aircraft.
Ark Royal
Sorry, you lost me there. What part did you not understand?
Just a numbered other
Caz,
If you were shocked to have read, in 1995, something that was not written until 2002, you must have said time machine!
Simple enough? What part don't you understand?
If you were shocked to have read, in 1995, something that was not written until 2002, you must have said time machine!
Simple enough? What part don't you understand?
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
Thanks for that Cazatou,
I feel another Freedom of Information Act request being submitted this weekend.
Kind regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I feel another Freedom of Information Act request being submitted this weekend.
Kind regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD Evidence to HofL
Cazatou,
Are you able to post the specific URL to which post 2580 refers - I am having problems finding such a 23 page document.
Many thanks.
JB
Walter,
If you read the BoI in full the selection of an inapproriate ROC to overfly the Mull comes out of nowhere - up to then the BoI had appeared to accept that the flight was planned to be VFR with no intention (or capability in RTS terms) to overfly the Mull. I suggest this might be part of the re-write to fit the Reviewing Officers conclusions!
JB
Are you able to post the specific URL to which post 2580 refers - I am having problems finding such a 23 page document.
Many thanks.
JB
Walter,
If you read the BoI in full the selection of an inapproriate ROC to overfly the Mull comes out of nowhere - up to then the BoI had appeared to accept that the flight was planned to be VFR with no intention (or capability in RTS terms) to overfly the Mull. I suggest this might be part of the re-write to fit the Reviewing Officers conclusions!
JB
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
John,
see Green Granite's post at 2584. Click on the word 'here'.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
see Green Granite's post at 2584. Click on the word 'here'.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lords Written Evidence
Brian,
Thanks - I have been looking at this, but cannot find the 23 page submission from MOD that Catazou refers to in post 2580. If you are able to provide directions it would be much appreciated.
JB
Thanks - I have been looking at this, but cannot find the 23 page submission from MOD that Catazou refers to in post 2580. If you are able to provide directions it would be much appreciated.
JB