Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
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
'Typical' weather conditions are not FACT. It could be like that for 364 out of 365 days, but your one bad day could be the one where the conditions were different. Nice try, but unfortunately no cigar today. 'Probably' has got us in the situation we are in today 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldomfit
<<[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']do you have any pictures of the weather at the exact time the aircraft hit the Mull as THEY would be very relevant to this debate[/font]>>
Well, the weather conditions are very relevant to this debate and pictures of the site from the air or from the sea (as opposed to descriptions from within the mist) would have been invaluable there were several hours of daylight available after the crash and so one has to wonder why no such photographs were taken surely not just stupid incompetence on behalf of the authorities.
You have had 13 summers to get familiar with the area (its only a days drive away) and to ask the authorities about their photographs.
I have spoken with several locals (on visits to the area) that have reinforced my personal experience of local weather in the region and, with the met conditions (dew point, temp, & wind) as given on the day, have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that at that time of day the mist would have been on the slopes (until it merged with the orographic cloud at 900ft that day) as I have tried to describe for so long now and, with a forecast giving such prevailing conditions, they could have been counted on days in advance.
I seem to recall that there was a demonstration flight for the legal people involved in one of the inquiries and that one of them commented that it had been (regretfully) clear a pity when it would have been so easy to have got the same conditions as the crash by scheduling the demo at the right time of year and time of day.
The pictures and explanation I posted were just to explain to people not familiar with the phenomenon how you get ground hugging mist.
I accuse the authorities of deliberately misrepresenting the weather conditions so as better to sell the conveniently simple scenario of an a/c crash in bad weather.
<<[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']do you have any pictures of the weather at the exact time the aircraft hit the Mull as THEY would be very relevant to this debate[/font]>>
Well, the weather conditions are very relevant to this debate and pictures of the site from the air or from the sea (as opposed to descriptions from within the mist) would have been invaluable there were several hours of daylight available after the crash and so one has to wonder why no such photographs were taken surely not just stupid incompetence on behalf of the authorities.
You have had 13 summers to get familiar with the area (its only a days drive away) and to ask the authorities about their photographs.
I have spoken with several locals (on visits to the area) that have reinforced my personal experience of local weather in the region and, with the met conditions (dew point, temp, & wind) as given on the day, have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that at that time of day the mist would have been on the slopes (until it merged with the orographic cloud at 900ft that day) as I have tried to describe for so long now and, with a forecast giving such prevailing conditions, they could have been counted on days in advance.
I seem to recall that there was a demonstration flight for the legal people involved in one of the inquiries and that one of them commented that it had been (regretfully) clear a pity when it would have been so easy to have got the same conditions as the crash by scheduling the demo at the right time of year and time of day.
The pictures and explanation I posted were just to explain to people not familiar with the phenomenon how you get ground hugging mist.
I accuse the authorities of deliberately misrepresenting the weather conditions so as better to sell the conveniently simple scenario of an a/c crash in bad weather.
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
I was flying that day as posted on one of the first pages. We could see for feckin miles underneath the cloud, we could even see the scottish coast close to the accident site. That was a long way from the glens of antrim!! The cloud was very very low and conditions were internally briefed as sh**ty. To be honest, everybody knows the weather was bad, none of the witnesses, BOI or even Day/Wrotten (not a spelling mistake) deny this. 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walt,
There is a huge difference between established fact and "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" and if you really are 100% certain in your own mind of the weather conditions at the time of the accident then you sir are a fool.
When you can provide us with concrete evidence to back your supposition, and supposition it is which appears to be based more on folklore than fact bring it back for us to examine.
In the meantime the vast majority of us, none of whom were there that day and therefore have no actual facts to base opinions on will continue, as always to wonder what really happened and how/why this unjust result was reached.
There is a huge difference between established fact and "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" and if you really are 100% certain in your own mind of the weather conditions at the time of the accident then you sir are a fool.
When you can provide us with concrete evidence to back your supposition, and supposition it is which appears to be based more on folklore than fact bring it back for us to examine.
In the meantime the vast majority of us, none of whom were there that day and therefore have no actual facts to base opinions on will continue, as always to wonder what really happened and how/why this unjust result was reached.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
If you look at the top of the page, on the left of the yellow bar, you will see "User CP"
Click on that, to reveal on the left hand side about halfway down, the "Buddy/Ignore" list.
I urge you to put WK on your ignore list. I did some time ago, and now read this thread in blissful ignorance of the inane ramblings of this delusional idiot.
Life is too short!
Enjoy
If you look at the top of the page, on the left of the yellow bar, you will see "User CP"
Click on that, to reveal on the left hand side about halfway down, the "Buddy/Ignore" list.
I urge you to put WK on your ignore list. I did some time ago, and now read this thread in blissful ignorance of the inane ramblings of this delusional idiot.
Life is too short!
Enjoy
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
" It would have been so easy to get the same conditions as the crash by scheduling the demo at the right time of year and time of day."
Agreed - but what do you say to the relatives of those on board if it has the same result?
Incidentally, what purports to be an extract from the "crew logbook" of the RN Sea King scrambled from Prestwick was printed in the Sunday Herald 3 Feb 2002:-
"Closed accident scene from the south of the Mull, found four or five lines of fire in the heather on the hillside but cloud and smoke prohibited any cliff transit to the crash site. Landed at landing pad near lighthouse to assist with casevac if required (we weren't!)."
The helicopter was scrambled at 1810 (local) - outside normal working hours. They didn't have time to wait for someone to find a photographer.
" It would have been so easy to get the same conditions as the crash by scheduling the demo at the right time of year and time of day."
Agreed - but what do you say to the relatives of those on board if it has the same result?
Incidentally, what purports to be an extract from the "crew logbook" of the RN Sea King scrambled from Prestwick was printed in the Sunday Herald 3 Feb 2002:-
"Closed accident scene from the south of the Mull, found four or five lines of fire in the heather on the hillside but cloud and smoke prohibited any cliff transit to the crash site. Landed at landing pad near lighthouse to assist with casevac if required (we weren't!)."
The helicopter was scrambled at 1810 (local) - outside normal working hours. They didn't have time to wait for someone to find a photographer.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks WK should work for the Beeb if he can categorically predict weather on a single hillside with absolutely no doubt whatsoever based on historical norms. Guess the Met Office is doomed.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
<<Agreed - but what do you say to the relatives of those on board if it has the same result?>> Unless you had been suckered in, wouldnt you just stay off a bit? otherwise, just blame the pilots ...
.
<< They didn't have time to wait for someone to find a photographer>> - mmm perhaps it was the other helicopter that came along but I have been told now that relevant photos were after all taken Ill post them as soon as I get them.
.
<<Landed at landing pad near lighthouse...>> no they did not.
I have it from a person of authority on the scene that both it and the other attending helicopter that arrived a bit later ended up on the more spacious landing area pictured in the link below (looks like a green triangle) where he said larger helicopters had landed before and where he thought the Chinook may have been attempting to land (the position relating to waypoint A is just off the edge an obvious inner marker). The helipad nearer the light house is too small. The person also described the fog as not extending to any great height as there were frequent breaks in it such that one could see its extent (obviously this applies to below the solid orographic cloud seems rather like my understanding of the conditions).
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=44e784ab.jpg
This "green triangle" is spacious, level, and firm - and guess what? - the handling pilots baro alt had a pressure setting that would have given zero on that ground (a QFI or happenstance?) - sort of goes with the minimum setting for a RADALT alarm (landing in marginal conditions?).
You don't have to go along with all of it, just try and get some progress happening.
<<Agreed - but what do you say to the relatives of those on board if it has the same result?>> Unless you had been suckered in, wouldnt you just stay off a bit? otherwise, just blame the pilots ...
.
<< They didn't have time to wait for someone to find a photographer>> - mmm perhaps it was the other helicopter that came along but I have been told now that relevant photos were after all taken Ill post them as soon as I get them.
.
<<Landed at landing pad near lighthouse...>> no they did not.
I have it from a person of authority on the scene that both it and the other attending helicopter that arrived a bit later ended up on the more spacious landing area pictured in the link below (looks like a green triangle) where he said larger helicopters had landed before and where he thought the Chinook may have been attempting to land (the position relating to waypoint A is just off the edge an obvious inner marker). The helipad nearer the light house is too small. The person also described the fog as not extending to any great height as there were frequent breaks in it such that one could see its extent (obviously this applies to below the solid orographic cloud seems rather like my understanding of the conditions).
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...t=44e784ab.jpg
This "green triangle" is spacious, level, and firm - and guess what? - the handling pilots baro alt had a pressure setting that would have given zero on that ground (a QFI or happenstance?) - sort of goes with the minimum setting for a RADALT alarm (landing in marginal conditions?).
You don't have to go along with all of it, just try and get some progress happening.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
I fully agree with your sentiments with regards to Walt but believe it is vital that those of us who keep shooting this idiots pet theories down continue to do so.
You will not have seen his post #2766 which, if he ACTUALLY believes what he has written makes him look even dafter that any of us had previously imagined, a point that southbound makes quite succinctly and no doubt others who come into this thread will spot with ease
I fully agree with your sentiments with regards to Walt but believe it is vital that those of us who keep shooting this idiots pet theories down continue to do so.
You will not have seen his post #2766 which, if he ACTUALLY believes what he has written makes him look even dafter that any of us had previously imagined, a point that southbound makes quite succinctly and no doubt others who come into this thread will spot with ease
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
All ten "eyewitnesses" on the Mull of Kintyre reported the weather as being generally foggy and very bad. Nine of those witnesses specifically gave evidence to the BOI about the weather conditions at the time of the crash.
The evidence of the 2 Lighthouse keepers is, perhaps, the most important; as they would make meteorological observations in the course of their normal duties.
All ten "eyewitnesses" on the Mull of Kintyre reported the weather as being generally foggy and very bad. Nine of those witnesses specifically gave evidence to the BOI about the weather conditions at the time of the crash.
The evidence of the 2 Lighthouse keepers is, perhaps, the most important; as they would make meteorological observations in the course of their normal duties.
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
I'd be more interested to hear what the view was like from the cockpit. 
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
Regettably that is not available. All of those 9 witnesses heard or felt the crash. Thus it is almost certain that their recollections of the weather are linked to the crash.
The same cannot be said of the yachtsman who would not have known of the crash until significantly later; most likely not until after he had docked and returned to shore. My own recollection is that, after being informed by STC Ops about the crash, I turned on the TV just as the first "newsflash" gave basic details of the crash at about 1910A.
The yachtsman told the BOI that, when some 2nm SW of the lighthouse he had seen the Chinook fly past his yacht, "The visibility was about one mile and limited by haze". Some 19 months later he told the FAI "I recall the conditions of visibility at sea level as being fine, perhaps as much as five miles. I think at that point I could even see the Antrim coast so it may have been as much as six or seven miles". Those statements are incompatable with one another.
The yachtsman also recalled that he was manouvering around some fishing vessels at the time and that he had called his "cabin boy" up onto the deck to look at the helicopter. Neither the fishing vessels nor the cabin boy had been mentioned to the BOI (the yachtsman was referred to as "the lone yachtsman"), yet they could have been important witnessses: particularly the fishermen who would be used to assessing weather conditions at sea..
Whilst it is possible that he may have seen the lighthouse at times during the afternoon, no less than 4 eyewitnesses are adamant that the visibility at the lighthouse at the time of the crash was exceedingly poor (15-20 metres).
Regretably, human recollection is an imperfect thing. I would, however, suggest that, in this case, the evidence of the 9 witnesses on the Mull is compelling.
Regettably that is not available. All of those 9 witnesses heard or felt the crash. Thus it is almost certain that their recollections of the weather are linked to the crash.
The same cannot be said of the yachtsman who would not have known of the crash until significantly later; most likely not until after he had docked and returned to shore. My own recollection is that, after being informed by STC Ops about the crash, I turned on the TV just as the first "newsflash" gave basic details of the crash at about 1910A.
The yachtsman told the BOI that, when some 2nm SW of the lighthouse he had seen the Chinook fly past his yacht, "The visibility was about one mile and limited by haze". Some 19 months later he told the FAI "I recall the conditions of visibility at sea level as being fine, perhaps as much as five miles. I think at that point I could even see the Antrim coast so it may have been as much as six or seven miles". Those statements are incompatable with one another.
The yachtsman also recalled that he was manouvering around some fishing vessels at the time and that he had called his "cabin boy" up onto the deck to look at the helicopter. Neither the fishing vessels nor the cabin boy had been mentioned to the BOI (the yachtsman was referred to as "the lone yachtsman"), yet they could have been important witnessses: particularly the fishermen who would be used to assessing weather conditions at sea..
Whilst it is possible that he may have seen the lighthouse at times during the afternoon, no less than 4 eyewitnesses are adamant that the visibility at the lighthouse at the time of the crash was exceedingly poor (15-20 metres).
Regretably, human recollection is an imperfect thing. I would, however, suggest that, in this case, the evidence of the 9 witnesses on the Mull is compelling.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Brian. No, we do not know and we shall never know what the crew could see from the cockpit, but there are only two possibilities; one, they could see ahead to the coast and the cloud-covered hills, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to turn away; or, two, they could not see clearly ahead, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to have turned away.
Please say which version of their forward vision you prefer. Regards. JP
Please say which version of their forward vision you prefer. Regards. JP
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
Mr Purdey,
there's also a third option - they could see ahead and it was suitable for them to continue their journey.
However, no-one knows what could be seen from the cockpit, so this whole argument relating to weather is, as has been said many times before, pointless.
Cazatou, the 9 witnesses were in the cloud and not looking towards the Mull. A totally different situation from that of the crew.
Off on a short holiday now, so I'll bow out of the weather guessing game for a short while.
Regards all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
there's also a third option - they could see ahead and it was suitable for them to continue their journey.
However, no-one knows what could be seen from the cockpit, so this whole argument relating to weather is, as has been said many times before, pointless.
Cazatou, the 9 witnesses were in the cloud and not looking towards the Mull. A totally different situation from that of the crew.
Off on a short holiday now, so I'll bow out of the weather guessing game for a short while.
Regards all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regretably, human recollection is an imperfect thing. I would, however, suggest that, in this case, the evidence of the 9 witnesses on the Mull is compelling.
They were all in cloud. Or at least 'hill fog', in visibility which if memory serves, more than one of them describe as 'coming and going. In other words patchy.
(Incidentally, I don't recall any of them being anywhere near sea level.)
That tells us nothing of the visibility experienced by the crew as the helicopter approached the Mull in the crucial moments.
The only 'eyewitness' to that is the yachtsman 'Holbrook'.
I well remember sitting in the FAI at Paisley as he stated: "If you are seeking to establish whether I believe the crew of the helicopter could see the lighthouse as they approached the Mull, the answer is; yes I believe they could."
Inconvenient for the likes of JP and cazatou (K52) I know, but there you are, Holbrook was there, they were not.
I thought that the whole point of Walter's photographs was to show examples of typical Mull weather - orographic cloud at the top and good visibility elsewhere. This is a point that he has frequently made and, although he may deserve criticism for many of his ideas, he doesn't in this case.
They do not prove anything but, at least, they show how ridiculous it is to use landbased witnesses to judge the actions of those even a short distance away.
They do not prove anything but, at least, they show how ridiculous it is to use landbased witnesses to judge the actions of those even a short distance away.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tandemrotor. As quoted in the book Chinook Crash, at the FAI Holbrook said that they (ie he and his companion) could see the lighhouse's white perimeter wall, but above it low cloud obscured the hillside. And later, ...he could clearly see the Mull and identify the lighthouse as a lighter patch, but low cloud still hung over the upper part of the Mull.
You may be interested to read the several descriptions of the weather by the ten or so folk who were on the hillside at the time; they are on pages 15-19 of the book. They all talk about the fog in the area, and the visibility is variously described as 10-15 feet and 20 yards.
With all good wishes. JP
You may be interested to read the several descriptions of the weather by the ten or so folk who were on the hillside at the time; they are on pages 15-19 of the book. They all talk about the fog in the area, and the visibility is variously described as 10-15 feet and 20 yards.
With all good wishes. JP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Thank you.
As memory serves, the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse, and presumably it's wall, is approximately 240' above sea level. It is utterly unexceptional, to operate support helicopters below this level. Even if one of the witnesses on the hillside was below this height (were they?) their evidence is of little more than 'circumstantial' value, as they cannot testify to the weather out to sea, nor at the relevant altitudes.
The ONLY person we have heard from, who CAN answer that question is the yachtsman.
I refer you to my earlier post, and his comments to the FAI, in which he DID answer that question.
I have no problem covering the same old ground yet again, as I will never allow this debate to be portrayed as a case with 'factual' evidence supporting those who claim they know with 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what caused this crash.
There is a huge amount of doubt!
Ever vigilant. We won't go away!
Kind regards
Thank you.
As memory serves, the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse, and presumably it's wall, is approximately 240' above sea level. It is utterly unexceptional, to operate support helicopters below this level. Even if one of the witnesses on the hillside was below this height (were they?) their evidence is of little more than 'circumstantial' value, as they cannot testify to the weather out to sea, nor at the relevant altitudes.
The ONLY person we have heard from, who CAN answer that question is the yachtsman.
I refer you to my earlier post, and his comments to the FAI, in which he DID answer that question.
I have no problem covering the same old ground yet again, as I will never allow this debate to be portrayed as a case with 'factual' evidence supporting those who claim they know with 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' what caused this crash.
There is a huge amount of doubt!
Ever vigilant. We won't go away!
Kind regards
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 23rd Oct 2007 at 19:31.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem,
JP has no valid argument to counter your post and will simply repost his same old same old, however I congratulate you and like so many others on here applaud you for continuing to offer your entirely credible arguments to his ASSERTIONS
JP has no valid argument to counter your post and will simply repost his same old same old, however I congratulate you and like so many others on here applaud you for continuing to offer your entirely credible arguments to his ASSERTIONS