Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 1st Apr 2007, 15:00
  #2701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
ShyTorque,

I think we went through this one a decade ago.

This was an "In Theatre" generated Task utilising "In Theatre" assets. It would not have merited a Comms Fleet aircraft. Anyway, that would have necessitated a flight from Southern England to Belfast and Inverness; plus a return Flight to Base. This would have had to be repeated in reverse at the end of the "Conference". NO Comms Fleet Aircraft was available for such a task that day - there was not a single serviceable Comms Fleet aircraft untasked at Northolt on the 2nd June 1994. It took till 2 AM on the 3rd to rearrange the programme to "free up" a 125 for the BOI.
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2007, 23:13
  #2702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Bearing in mind the accident didn't occur until sometime after 1800 on the 2nd of June, I imagine 'freeing up' a comms aircraft less than 8 hours later does not necessarily indicate any shortage of aircraft.

After all, how long would it have taken to identify, select, contact, assemble and transport the BOI to a suitable pick up point? Never mind assemble and brief a crew.

On the other hand if that part of your post was superfluous, and irrelevant information, then fair enough.

Only a thought.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2007, 00:03
  #2703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,743
chinook

Caz, Shy, and Tandem, there may not have been any `Comms` aircraft available that day,but there was certainly a Herk that could have been utilised, as I did a L-Level sortie being `checked` from Lye-Lossie.Route was up thru` Wales ,across to the Lakes and then across towards Turnberry, at which point everyone could see the Mull in the distance, with a `cap` of cloud, and began to sing the old refrain/chorus- short lived . We then went North and later pulled out somewhere, due to poor vis, landing at Lossie,early afternoon.Then did another short L-L trip, put Albert to bed and retired to the bar, for the `debrief`. At this point the `crash ` alarm went, for the SAR &MRT , and being `nosey` I rang Ops to find out `wazzup`, and offered an empty Albert to take the MRT down to Mac. This was refused by Lossie and Ascot Ops, so the MRT had to drive all the way.That really p$$%^d me and the crew off. It was only later that we saw the `news`. It would not have taken much to have arranged transport from Ald.,by us, and we were returning to Lye. the next day. Syc...........
sycamore is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2007, 18:53
  #2704 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,902
Cazatou,
Yes, you were posting under a different name (K52) a decade ago and came back here without declaring that change, as if to show another hand against the crew. I still disagree with both of you.

If the mission was extremely important then another aircraft could and should have been found. How much effort, if any, at management level, was really put into finding an alternative method of transport for these pax?

Sycamore's post indicates that other RAF assets were available but not asked for.

Was "civvy air" ever considered and if not, why not? We used to do NI crew changeovers by that method; all it needed was someone to organise tickets....they certainly didn't need to be on the same aircraft. In fact, as the tragedy showed, it would have been far more sensible from the outset to divide the pax load so as not to put all these eggs in one basket.

On the other hand, if the mission wasn't important, why was it not postponed or cancelled at Command level?

The crew paid for all the mistakes, at whichever desk they were made.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2007, 07:07
  #2705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nowra, NSW, Australia
Posts: 137
Hmm, no-one seems to have seen this image....
evilroy is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2007, 14:11
  #2706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Boscombe Down's refusal to fly the Chinook 2

ShyTorque,
Thanks for your comment, which I have only just seen.
The refusal by Boscombe Down to fly the Mk 2 any more, the very day before the tragedy, has always struck me as one of the most significant items in this whole sorry saga, yet it has received very little attention. In my day at Boscombe (which I suspect was before many of the contributors to this thread were even born!), a decision to ground a test aircraft was always seen as the "nuclear option". In other words, whenever there was a serious problem, you did everything possible to work around that problem and continue with the main job in hand.
That could usually be done, either by avoiding known problem areas in the flight envelope or particular equipment functions. Not that these were ignored, but it gave time for the relevant manufacturer to develop an appropriate fix without bringing all work on the programme to a standstill.
Boscombe long had a reputation for causing delays in new projects for the Service, but IMHO that was never deserved. Everyone at Boscombe, Service or civilian, worked to the highest standards and we certainly did our utmost to get all new kit approved for Service use just as soon as possible. Too often, we were thwarted by the incredible time it took various manufacturers to produce fixes for problems we found.
I go into this detail just to put into its proper context the refusal by Boscombe to fly the Mk 2. It must have been an extremely widely-discussed and agonising decision. I would have expected the shock waves immediately to have travelled to the highest levels of MOD. If your very own test establishment (no layers of quasi-independent "agencies" in those days!) says that this aircraft is not fit to fly because ......., then I would have expected the hard stuff to hit the fan with deafening and immediate repercussions throughout the whole of that fleet until the problem was fixed.
Interesting to speculate as to why their airships ignored it on this occasion, but probably fruitless at this stage.
Meanwhile, we all rely on Brian to promote and pursue this long-running campaign to reinstate the reputations of Jon and Rick.
Vertico is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2007, 22:20
  #2707 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,902
Vertico,

Thank you for your reply. I previously used this anaology: A civilian company puts forward a new type of aircraft to the CAA for testing for the award of a Certificate of Airworthiness.

The test pilots, having partly completed the trials, refuse to fly the aircraft any more because of fears of its safety and publicise this fact.

The following day, the company putting forward the aircraft ignores the grounding and uses the aircraft for a passenger flight (because they say, no other aircraft was available). It crashes, cause unknown, killing all on board.

If this were to occur, what would be the outcome? Who would be held liable? Legally and morally?

This is surely quite clearly obvious.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2007, 16:21
  #2708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Responsibility for ignoring the Boscombe Down grounding

ShyTorque,
Couldn't agree more! Your analogy is reasonable, if not altogether accurate, but the point is starkly clear.
Was that why their airships over-ruled the BoI? 'Cos if they had let it stand, the responsibility would clearly have lain at their own feet?
Reminds me of another BoI into a fatal crash in which I had a peripheral involvement many years ago. A certain Air Officer at HQRAFG was clearly so concerned about his position that I believe he called the President two or three times daily, trying to make sure nothing was emerging which might have threatened him. In the end, the fall guy was a relatively lowly Wing Commander. Strike you as similar?
Vertico is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2007, 18:09
  #2709 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi everyone.
My apologies for the prolonged absence. Work has interrupted the natural course of justice, taking me away from campaign duties for the past several weeks.

However, the good news for the MoD is that I'm back!

Fear not though, the Campaign has not been on hold, and has been working in the background as tirelessly as usual.

As I have said before, we are currently collating a number of quite significant documents and are steadily compiling what can be described as a very substantial document. I regret that I am unable to share the content with you all here - for the moment!

However, what I can say from documents that I have seen, there is evidence to support Vertico's comments on Boscombe Down. Boscombe were very concerned about the Mk2 and made their concerns clearly known.

The Campaign's work on our document is nearing its conclusion and we are due to meet in the near future to agree on when we make our planned move. Again, I regret that I am unable to say what that is on a public forum.

I wish I could tell you more, as I believe that, due to your fantastic and patient support of us all, you deserve to know. Unfortunately, we don't wish to show our hand too early to those who have wriggled, squirmed and maniplulated information for the past 13 years. I assure you that as soon as the time is right, the real mismanagement issues will be published for all the world to see.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2007, 22:32
  #2710 (permalink)  
vincit veritas
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 35
Brian, Its good to hear from you. Keep up the good work.
XM147 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2007, 20:53
  #2711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Can someone please tell us the precise reasons why BD refused to fly the Mk II Chinook? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2007, 21:46
  #2712 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
They didn't like the fact that it didn't do what it said on the tin. ie - Work

Regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2007, 22:35
  #2713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Boscombe Down's reason for stopping flight tests on the Chinook Mk 2

Brian,
Wasn't it rather more specific than that? My understanding from this thread is that they were concerned about malfunctioning of the FADEC. From what subsequently came out of previous incidents (but perhaps not known to the RAF at the time of the Mull of Kintyre disaster) it was clear that the FADEC had such high authority that if it malfunctioned, it could take away control of the aircraft from the pilots. So, whatever the pilots may then have done in their entirely reasonable attempts to maintain control of a misbehaving aircraft, the FADEC could override them.
Gross negligence?? Good God no!
Vertico is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2007, 23:23
  #2714 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Vertico,
yes, you are correct.
Not only was the primary FADEC computer controlled, the back-up system was too. I'm not sure but I believe that the latest version of FADEC allows for the back-up system to be overridden by human input.

As I said in my previous post, we have collated quite a few significant documents. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to expand further at this time, and for that I apologise. As and when the time is right, I shall ensure that the relevant information is available in the public domain.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Last edited by Brian Dixon; 7th Apr 2007 at 23:36.
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2007, 08:30
  #2715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
With the day fast approaching when the next General Election will surely become due, it is useful to recall the words of David Cameron last July:

I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.

Your sincerely,

David Cameron


Not long now before Green Dave will have that opportunity.....
BEagle is online now  
Old 8th Apr 2007, 09:25
  #2716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,661
in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Do you ever wonder why Blair has held out so strongly for the status quo? He wasn't on watch at the time of the accident or the BoI report.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 8th Apr 2007, 10:36
  #2717 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Pulse1,
much as I hate defending Mr Bliar, he can only go by what he it told in a briefing. In a letter to me from John Reid, dated 17 April 2006, Dr Reid stated:

"Prior to the Labour Government forming in May 1997, I and colleagues believed that there were sufficient grounds to question the finding of the Board of Inquiry. This may well have been because we were not at that stage in possession of the full facts of the case, which were then not so widely known as they are now."
and
"However, after seeing written summaries, and receiving oral briefings, including from the Reviewing Officers, it became clear to us that, given the circumstances, they were correct in their eventual finding."

I wrote back asking Dr Reid what additional information he had been supplied with that made him change his mind. I also asked for copies of any such information and minutes of meetings.

Guess what? I'm still waiting for a reply.

In addition, I still have a request in for 13 further documents requested under the FoIA. I'm currently out of favour with the MoD, having been told in their last letter to me, dated, 18 Oct 2006, "I believe that you will now be aware of the direction that the Secretary of State gave in a written response to Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan that the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make."

Seems like I have outstayed my welcome Something to hide, chaps??

With regards my outstanding requests, the MoD have cleverly stated, "We have not been able to trace a copy of this document. If it is subsequently found it will be provided to you." Technically not a refusal, but I doubt the documents will be located sometime soon. Not to worry, we have enough to be getting on with.

The bottom line is, Pulse1, that those elected to office can only go by the briefings given to them by the MoD. One has to ask, therefore, why the MoD refuse to acknowledge information that came to light after the Reviewing Officers interpreted the scant evidence as they did?

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2007, 13:15
  #2718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
Given the recent collusion and cover-up attempted by the MoD over the fatal A-10 strafe attack on British military vehicles during the early days of Bliar's GW2 Iraq adventurism, is it hardly surprising that they twist and turn to avoid clear replies and hide behind such rhetoric as "....the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make."?

It makes people all the more convinced that the buggers are concealing the something.....perhaps because, if it all came out, they would probably find themselves having to pay out mi££ions in corporate manslaughter claims?

Maybe we'll have to wait until Green Dave fulfils his promise?
BEagle is online now  
Old 17th Apr 2007, 21:17
  #2719 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
"....the standard cost compliance test should be made to any future FOI requests that you make."?
Only mentions me, BEags. I have one or two friends who can write too

I aim to remain the Irritating Sod for as long as is necessary!

Regards as always,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2007, 21:22
  #2720 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Just a reminder (as if it is needed), that the terrible accident took place 13 years ago today.

May all who were lost on that day, never be forgotten.

Flt Lt Jonathan Tapper
Flt Lt Richard Cook
MALM Graham Forbes
Sgt Kevin Hardie
Asst Chief Constable Brian Fitzsimons
Det Chief Superintendant Desmond Conroy
Det Chief Superintendant Maurice Reilly
Det Superintendant Philip Davidson
Det Superintendant Robert Foster
Det Superintendant Billy Gwilliam
Det Superintendant Ian Phoenix
Det Chief Inspector Denis Bunting
Det Inspector Stephen Davidson
Det Inspector Kevin Magee
John Deverill
Colonel Chrostopher Biles OBE
Lt. Colonel Richard Gregory-Smith
Lt. Colonel John Tobias
Lt. Colonel George Williams
Major Christopher Docherty
Major Anthony Hornby
Major Gary Sparks
Major Richard Allen
Major Roy Pugh
Anne James
Martin Dalton
John Haynes
Michael Maltby
Stephen Rickard

RIP
Brian Dixon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.