Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
A comment on the BBC ref the Nimrod report.....
President of the BOI, Group Captain Nick Sharpe, said there was no information to "positively identify" the cause of the crash, but enough to "probably" determine what happened.
Hmmm, this sounds familiar doesn't it - what we know now or what the senior officers thought they knew back then does not warrant a verdict of Gross Negligence.
Another quote from the BBC....
Mr Browne said: "On behalf of the MoD and the Royal Air Force, I would like to apologise to the House of Commons, and most of all to those who lost their lives, and to their families.
"I am sorry."
Whilst you are in the mood for apologising Mr Browne let's have another one please - put aside this unjust decision and let the families in this incident move on.
President of the BOI, Group Captain Nick Sharpe, said there was no information to "positively identify" the cause of the crash, but enough to "probably" determine what happened.
Hmmm, this sounds familiar doesn't it - what we know now or what the senior officers thought they knew back then does not warrant a verdict of Gross Negligence.
Another quote from the BBC....
Mr Browne said: "On behalf of the MoD and the Royal Air Force, I would like to apologise to the House of Commons, and most of all to those who lost their lives, and to their families.
"I am sorry."
Whilst you are in the mood for apologising Mr Browne let's have another one please - put aside this unjust decision and let the families in this incident move on.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
How could you possibly get so confused – the 80 was a suggestion if they had had another ˝ mile or so in that power regime – and was a prompt for people with hands on experience with a Mk1 or 2 to estimate a better figure.
Pls read post again and for an understanding of the air speed analysis, I recommend downloading the Boeing document (NOT the simulation) which is freely available on the web:
8-7D20- DSS-0306, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18, 2002
“Mull of Kintyre – Analysis of Available Data”
Prepared by James Mitchel
Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
There are detailed calculations therein giving specific values from where I got the 20 kts reduction figure for true air speed but the following extract from the conclusions should answer your query:
<<An average ground speed for the flight, from the Aldergrove ATC fix until the point of impact, was determined by simply dividing distance traveled by time taken. This ground speed was converted to true airspeed by correcting for the effects of wind. The resulting value for average true airspeed was at the higher end of the normal cruise airspeed range.
A more precise, local, value of true airspeed just prior to the point of impact was determined from data retrieved from the SuperTANS that was related to the last steering calculations the unit had performed. This value was lower than the average value determined from the time and distance calculations, and was more consistent with the airspeed value normally used for a cruise climb profile. This leads to a conclusion that the airspeed was reduced as the landmass of the Mull was approached; from a relatively high cruise airspeed to a more normal airspeed as a cruise climb was initiated. It was also determined from the same set of data that, even with this lower airspeed, the aircraft ground speed remained essentially constant as the aircraft approached the Mull. It was concluded that this was due to the effects of the increase in wind strength at the Mull when compared with the wind strength over Northern Ireland and during the sea crossing. >>
How could you possibly get so confused – the 80 was a suggestion if they had had another ˝ mile or so in that power regime – and was a prompt for people with hands on experience with a Mk1 or 2 to estimate a better figure.
Pls read post again and for an understanding of the air speed analysis, I recommend downloading the Boeing document (NOT the simulation) which is freely available on the web:
8-7D20- DSS-0306, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18, 2002
“Mull of Kintyre – Analysis of Available Data”
Prepared by James Mitchel
Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
There are detailed calculations therein giving specific values from where I got the 20 kts reduction figure for true air speed but the following extract from the conclusions should answer your query:
<<An average ground speed for the flight, from the Aldergrove ATC fix until the point of impact, was determined by simply dividing distance traveled by time taken. This ground speed was converted to true airspeed by correcting for the effects of wind. The resulting value for average true airspeed was at the higher end of the normal cruise airspeed range.
A more precise, local, value of true airspeed just prior to the point of impact was determined from data retrieved from the SuperTANS that was related to the last steering calculations the unit had performed. This value was lower than the average value determined from the time and distance calculations, and was more consistent with the airspeed value normally used for a cruise climb profile. This leads to a conclusion that the airspeed was reduced as the landmass of the Mull was approached; from a relatively high cruise airspeed to a more normal airspeed as a cruise climb was initiated. It was also determined from the same set of data that, even with this lower airspeed, the aircraft ground speed remained essentially constant as the aircraft approached the Mull. It was concluded that this was due to the effects of the increase in wind strength at the Mull when compared with the wind strength over Northern Ireland and during the sea crossing. >>
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
I was quoting the conclusions of the AAIB from their examination of the crash site and wreckage NOT from data extracted by Boeing.
"Groundspeed at initial impact was of the order of 150 kts, the track approximately 12 degrees True, and the aircraft was climbing with a flight path approximately 20 degrees above the horizontal. At initial impact the aircraft was erect, rolled slightly left and pitched approximately 30 degrees nose up, probably with little yaw angle."
Boeng found that, assuming the aircraft speed remained relatively constant over the period from the last steering command to the point of impact (a matter of approx 0.75 seconds), and taking account of aircraft tyre tracks and wind speed, an aircraft groundspeed of 162.8 kts is derived with an aircraft heading of 017 degrees True.
I was quoting the conclusions of the AAIB from their examination of the crash site and wreckage NOT from data extracted by Boeing.
"Groundspeed at initial impact was of the order of 150 kts, the track approximately 12 degrees True, and the aircraft was climbing with a flight path approximately 20 degrees above the horizontal. At initial impact the aircraft was erect, rolled slightly left and pitched approximately 30 degrees nose up, probably with little yaw angle."
Boeng found that, assuming the aircraft speed remained relatively constant over the period from the last steering command to the point of impact (a matter of approx 0.75 seconds), and taking account of aircraft tyre tracks and wind speed, an aircraft groundspeed of 162.8 kts is derived with an aircraft heading of 017 degrees True.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
So, did you go through the Boeing calculations? Understand the wind,etc?
You’ll find para 3.2 gives the calculations well explained in detail. It gives 148.8kt mean true airspeed from ATC fix to waypoint change using an average surface wind speed of 15kt. Had the wind actually been stronger than this estimate, then it would have further reduced the speed to a more normal cruise speed (also considering the relatively low load weight).
From the last steering command calculations, it gives 135.5kt true air speed and concludes “…that the aircraft was probably flying at a relatively high airspeed until the Mull coastline was approached, at which point the aircraft slowed. Interestingly, this reduction in airspeed is countered by the increase in wind strength at the Mull, such that the net aircraft ground speed remains effectively unchanged.”
With the (just about following) wind on the Mull given as 30kt (the sources of the wind used in the Boeing doc are given therein) it is all the same (135.5 + 30 is close to 162.8) – what is important is that the Boeing doc shows that significant reduction in true air speed at that critical time – and this reduction is compatible with the power settings found (matched and intermediate) suggesting, surely, an intended gradual slowing.
By the way, the speed of 135.5kt above has significance to the recent debate on VFR minima – they had slowed to below 140kt true air speed by my reckoning before they had entered the murk (otherwise I think they may have manouevred sooner) – they may have misjudged how far away the murk was, but does that not mean that the lower speed minima should have applied?
I think that that debate was academic anyway as they were approaching a fixed object covered in mist that was right on it as opposed to being amongst bad vis when approaching it.
It would be very interesting to hear from the Sea King pilot, that did land that evening, what line of approach he took, what he could see from out at sea rather than the conditions whilst trying to land (the only bit that seems to have been quoted at the inquiries), and what speed profile he had when arriving at the scene (ie at what distance off did he start slowing down). He had the benefit of radar guidance and so would know for sure how far off the land mass he was - and knowing that nothing would be coming out of the mist, I'll bet he could have approached it quite rapidly.
So, did you go through the Boeing calculations? Understand the wind,etc?
You’ll find para 3.2 gives the calculations well explained in detail. It gives 148.8kt mean true airspeed from ATC fix to waypoint change using an average surface wind speed of 15kt. Had the wind actually been stronger than this estimate, then it would have further reduced the speed to a more normal cruise speed (also considering the relatively low load weight).
From the last steering command calculations, it gives 135.5kt true air speed and concludes “…that the aircraft was probably flying at a relatively high airspeed until the Mull coastline was approached, at which point the aircraft slowed. Interestingly, this reduction in airspeed is countered by the increase in wind strength at the Mull, such that the net aircraft ground speed remains effectively unchanged.”
With the (just about following) wind on the Mull given as 30kt (the sources of the wind used in the Boeing doc are given therein) it is all the same (135.5 + 30 is close to 162.8) – what is important is that the Boeing doc shows that significant reduction in true air speed at that critical time – and this reduction is compatible with the power settings found (matched and intermediate) suggesting, surely, an intended gradual slowing.
By the way, the speed of 135.5kt above has significance to the recent debate on VFR minima – they had slowed to below 140kt true air speed by my reckoning before they had entered the murk (otherwise I think they may have manouevred sooner) – they may have misjudged how far away the murk was, but does that not mean that the lower speed minima should have applied?
I think that that debate was academic anyway as they were approaching a fixed object covered in mist that was right on it as opposed to being amongst bad vis when approaching it.
It would be very interesting to hear from the Sea King pilot, that did land that evening, what line of approach he took, what he could see from out at sea rather than the conditions whilst trying to land (the only bit that seems to have been quoted at the inquiries), and what speed profile he had when arriving at the scene (ie at what distance off did he start slowing down). He had the benefit of radar guidance and so would know for sure how far off the land mass he was - and knowing that nothing would be coming out of the mist, I'll bet he could have approached it quite rapidly.
Last edited by walter kennedy; 6th Dec 2007 at 14:06. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inquiery
Just watching Sky news at 17.03, and it's been announced this case is to be looked into again!, due to pressure from campaigners.
Lets all hope its done properly.
The cynic in me, says it's more to do with time passing by long enough for face saving about turns to be made. But I don't care, as long as it's done properly this time.
Lets all hope its done properly.
The cynic in me, says it's more to do with time passing by long enough for face saving about turns to be made. But I don't care, as long as it's done properly this time.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it may well be the end of the beginning! Congratulations Brian et al, your tireless persistence has at last made the MOD take note of the real world. A mammoth achievement! We must now ensure that the grass is kept well mown so that unwelcome issues may no longer be booted into it!
Let Right Be Done!
Let Right Be Done!
L'enfant Terrible
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The bar of Mumbles rugby club
Age: 42
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to those who've fought so hard to get the evidence re-examined.
No doubt the families of those killed are very proud of your efforts (as, I think, is everyone who uses this forum).
No doubt the families of those killed are very proud of your efforts (as, I think, is everyone who uses this forum).
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
Kind words everyone, thank you.
Don't forget, I'm just the one who puts everything on the Internet - there are many others who have worked on this injustice. Plus - and most importantly, there are those of you whose words of encouragement and support have kept us going through all the difficult times.
Again, I apologise that I am unable to go into specifics with regards the new report. I am sure that you understand why. Lord O'Neill is to give an interview on Channel 4 news tonight at 7.00pm (uk time). He may expand a bit further.
Let us hope that the Secretary of State soon does the honourable thing and returns the reputation of two fine Royal Air Force pilots.
To echo Chugalug2, remember - this is not the end.
Thank you all for your continued support.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Don't forget, I'm just the one who puts everything on the Internet - there are many others who have worked on this injustice. Plus - and most importantly, there are those of you whose words of encouragement and support have kept us going through all the difficult times.
Again, I apologise that I am unable to go into specifics with regards the new report. I am sure that you understand why. Lord O'Neill is to give an interview on Channel 4 news tonight at 7.00pm (uk time). He may expand a bit further.
Let us hope that the Secretary of State soon does the honourable thing and returns the reputation of two fine Royal Air Force pilots.
To echo Chugalug2, remember - this is not the end.
Thank you all for your continued support.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Brian Dixon.
Many congratulations, from this consistent adversary, in managing to raise this issue to SofS level.
If the SofS now overturns the opinion of the original BofI ('Crew selected an inappropriare rate of climb'), the two Air Officers who reviewed the case, that of (something like) ten previous Ministers across four administrations, and (as I recall) six Chiefs of the Air Staffs and their professional advisors, and all the Flight Safety Staffs who were involved, then that will no doubt be the end of the matter. I accept that.
But if he does not do so, will you now say that your campaign as the Irritating Sod/Irritating Pruner that you have always claimed to be, will now stop?
With renewed good wishes
John Purdey
Many congratulations, from this consistent adversary, in managing to raise this issue to SofS level.
If the SofS now overturns the opinion of the original BofI ('Crew selected an inappropriare rate of climb'), the two Air Officers who reviewed the case, that of (something like) ten previous Ministers across four administrations, and (as I recall) six Chiefs of the Air Staffs and their professional advisors, and all the Flight Safety Staffs who were involved, then that will no doubt be the end of the matter. I accept that.
But if he does not do so, will you now say that your campaign as the Irritating Sod/Irritating Pruner that you have always claimed to be, will now stop?
With renewed good wishes
John Purdey
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
Barnstormer 1968 said:
Trust me - it's nothing to do with the passage of time 
Mr Purdey,
thank you for your comment. If the SoS does not do the honourable thing then no, I can't make that promise. As my dear friend always said, "Justice has no expiry date". The verdict, under the rules in place at that time, is unsustainable and should therefore be removed.
Also, I don't claim to be an Irritating Sod/PPRuNer, I AM an Irritating Sod/PPRuNer!!
This is not the end means that we are not complacent. Nor are we arrogant enough to assume that, at this stage, we have achieved our objective. The report has to be properly considered and a decision reached by the MoD / SoS. It is the considered decision by Mr Browne that will determine whether or not the end has been reached.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The cynic in me, says it's more to do with time passing by long enough for face saving about turns to be made.
Mr Purdey,
thank you for your comment. If the SoS does not do the honourable thing then no, I can't make that promise. As my dear friend always said, "Justice has no expiry date". The verdict, under the rules in place at that time, is unsustainable and should therefore be removed.
Also, I don't claim to be an Irritating Sod/PPRuNer, I AM an Irritating Sod/PPRuNer!!
This is not the end means that we are not complacent. Nor are we arrogant enough to assume that, at this stage, we have achieved our objective. The report has to be properly considered and a decision reached by the MoD / SoS. It is the considered decision by Mr Browne that will determine whether or not the end has been reached.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian and Co
Well done
Walter
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Please remember that also at the time of the incident the new modded Chinook was just coming in to service and was a big deal for Boeing. I would not have trusted any of their findings as they would always lean towards any type of human error rather than towards their machine. I don't think the TAS has much relevance as mentioned by Cazatou ground speed at the time of impact was in the order of 150 kts and ther are a number of possible reasons for that.
John Purdey
The only irritating sod/PPRuNer i see on this thread is you Sir By the way your list of successive judgements by non independent partys is not really valid. You miss out the most important judgement so far and that was that the highest Law Lords in this land ruled that the cause category determined by the two Air Marshals was unsafe and unsound, a legal finding which the MOD refused to acknowledge. I will be very surprised if the SofS for Defence finds any different verdict to previous Defence Ministers (Lord knows when he will do his thorough investigation when he only works two days a week), but this is a step in the right direction and is raising awareness again. I hope to see the day that Wrotten and Day apologise, but I won't hold my breath!
Well done
Walter
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Please remember that also at the time of the incident the new modded Chinook was just coming in to service and was a big deal for Boeing. I would not have trusted any of their findings as they would always lean towards any type of human error rather than towards their machine. I don't think the TAS has much relevance as mentioned by Cazatou ground speed at the time of impact was in the order of 150 kts and ther are a number of possible reasons for that.
John Purdey
The only irritating sod/PPRuNer i see on this thread is you Sir
By the way your list of successive judgements by non independent partys is not really valid. You miss out the most important judgement so far and that was that the highest Law Lords in this land ruled that the cause category determined by the two Air Marshals was unsafe and unsound, a legal finding which the MOD refused to acknowledge. I will be very surprised if the SofS for Defence finds any different verdict to previous Defence Ministers (Lord knows when he will do his thorough investigation when he only works two days a week), but this is a step in the right direction and is raising awareness again. I hope to see the day that Wrotten and Day apologise, but I won't hold my breath!
Last edited by Tigs2; 6th Dec 2007 at 18:12.