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 4th Jan 2008, 07:51
  #3041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Surely John the very essence of this Thread is to do exactly that -


For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange.

Assuming Day/Wratten are members of your Flat Earth Society..............


AA
Sand4Gold is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 08:46
  #3042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Oh dear, we are at the arrogant and self righteous stage of quoting definitions and insults. Sorry BD, I note your sequence of events but prefer John Day's. Why didn't they turn at waypoint A, because they couldn't see it. The most reliable witnesses as to the weather and vis at the time, those at the lighthouse and on the Mull you choose to ignore quoting only the yachtsman who was at sea level beneath the layer and in any case changed his story at subsequent recollections..
courtney is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 09:12
  #3043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,642
Courtney,

Shouldn't your question be "Why didn't they turn when they changed the TANS to waypoint B, which was before they got to Waypoint A?" Perhaps you can enlighten those of us who don't know with your own (certain?)answer to that.

Surely Mr Holbrook's weather testimony is more relevant at that point.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 12:10
  #3044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
'Surely Mr Holbrook's weather testimony is more relevant at that point.' No it's not, many witness' testified to the weather at the point of impact not some distance away. They should have stayed low level, VMC they didn't, they were IMC when they hit. Why didn't they turn, perhaps having gone or decided to go IMC they decided to hold off and climb before turning towards the high ground, unfortunately when they did they were to fast to early. Who knows, but the contention is that they were negligent in getting themselves into that predicament.

Last edited by courtney; 4th Jan 2008 at 13:03.
courtney is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 13:44
  #3045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
Who knows, but the contention is that they were negligent in getting themselves into that predicament.
Well fine courtney, it is your contention and you are welcome to it, as is Walter to his Wacky Radios. Unfortunately for you and your chums it does not add up to the standard of evidence required to justify W&D's outrageous verdict.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 14:34
  #3046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug2. The thread seems to have degenerated into an exchange of insults and an argument about definitions. Meanwhile, when Brian Dixon sees SofS he may well be asked whether he believes there is any doubt whatsoever that the a/c was at very low level, at a goodly forward speed, heading for hills in IMC, which conditions the a/c then entered. It will certainly be pointed out to him that this amounts to negligence.
I have retired from this thread on account if its tiresome repetativeness, but I very much hope that the loyal, courteous and determined Brian has, as they say, got his ducks all lined up.
With all good wishes for the New Year, even to the obsessives among us! John Purdey
John Purdey is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 16:29
  #3047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
He may well be asked :-

"whether he believes there is any doubt whatsoever that the a/c was at very low level, at a goodly forward speed, heading for hills in IMC, which conditions the a/c then entered."

To which he may choose to reply to who ever poses that question whether they, based on the wealth of available technical information and expert testimony from the likes of S/L Burke etc have any doubt whatsoever that ZD576 was fully serviceable just prior to impact and that there is no doubt whatsoever that a mechanical failure did not contribute to this accident................
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 17:02
  #3048 (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.

Courtney,
How do you know that the pilots couldn't see the Mull?

I didn't include those stood on the Mull because they were actually in the cloud that covered the Mull and would not be in a position to observe what the conditions were for those looking at the Mull, unlike the yachtsman. This has been done to death over the course of this thread, so I don't intend to do it again.

I have no problem with you preferring John Day's best guess, but it still falls short, by quite some way, of those rules which you dislike so much.

I apologise if I come across as arrogant and self riteous. I would prefer those words be substituted with determined and irritating.

You still haven't told me why the rules are absurd. Why are they?

Mr Purdey,
many thanks for your kind words and for your good wishes for 2008. Let's hope the ducks do the job!

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Last edited by Brian Dixon; 4th Jan 2008 at 18:25. Reason: Spelling (or lack of!)
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 17:24
  #3049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Seldomfitforpurpose. Please do not misunderstand me; I am merely anxious that Brian present a rubust case to SofS so that we might at last see this case put to bed, one way or the other.
With that in mind, and with regard to your last post, I trust Brian will be able to answer the following point:
If there was some kind of control restriction that prevented the crew from turning away from the IMC conditions ahead, as they should have done, how did the aircraft manage to enter a cruise climb that would have enabled them to clear the hills had they been on their intended track?
And, with that control restiction, how was it that the aircraft was able to make a last minute pull-up and left turn in an apparent attempt to avoid the granite ahead of it?"
I do not mind, you understand, but these points will not go away.
With renewed good wishes. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 18:16
  #3050 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Mr Purdey,
What about a restriction preventing left or right movement of the cyclic. No restriction forward and backward on the cyclic. No restriction on the collective.

Cruise climb initiated via the collective and pull on the cyclic, but no option to turn away left or right.

The last minute pull up is achieved by the cyclic/collective combination and the final left turn is achieved by the large rudder input found in the wreckage.

Is it hypothetical? - Absolutely.
Could it happen? - Possibly.
Did it happen? - I don't know.
Would it be the sole cause of the accident? - Probably not.
If it occurred, could it have been a distraction? - I would think so, therefore not negligence.
Can it be completely ruled out? - Not by the evidence available.
Is it a simplistic view? - Yes, but there is nothing to categorically say that it absolutely did not happen.

Please note, I do accept this as an unlikely scenareo, but there is however, evidence that might support such a wild stab in the dark (?pre-impact detached pallet).

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook

Last edited by Brian Dixon; 4th Jan 2008 at 18:21. Reason: Poor grammar
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2008, 18:43
  #3051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: canada
Posts: 20
Then there is the broken tie-bolt, the metallic contamination of the hydraulics and the fact Boeing themselves do not know the cause
There is doubt and the standard test of AP3207 was not met
antenna is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 08:36
  #3052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Smoke and mirrors gentlemen, there is no evidence of any control malfunction. Fadec problems seem to be out of fashion at the moment. They made a deliberate turn towards high ground shrouded in mist and flew into it. End of story.
courtney is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 08:41
  #3053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
there is no evidence of any control malfunction

there is no evidence that there wasn't a control malfunction.............

But there is plenty of specialist technical and aviation expert evidence to suggest that maybe there was a control malfunction
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 09:32
  #3054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
Smoke and mirrors gentlemen, there is no evidence of any control malfunction. Fadec problems seem to be out of fashion at the moment. They made a deliberate turn towards high ground shrouded in mist and flew into it. End of story.
As you've already told us courtney, that is your contention, but not based on "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So W&D's verdict under the rules must be overturned. Endex.
I'm afraid that Sir Percy will have to wait to see all of Brian's ducks when they are lined up in front of the SoS. Your attempts to get a preview of them, on his behalf, will come to naught.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 11:21
  #3055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
courtney,
I note with interest that you joined PPRuNe on 27th December 2007. Since that time you have extolled your views it seems to me as the only ones that count. Sorry if that offends you but I cannot but help to draw that conclusion. Why?

I will tell you. There are literally hundreds of pages of posts on the subject of ZD576's sad contact with the Mull and I fear that you cannot have possibly read all of them before making your own conclusions. Can you? If so how?

In the time you have memberised yourself on PPRuNe you have in point of fact, pontificated your view without reference to the millons of words written this subject. For example. Have you the read chapter and verse on the House of Lords Select Committee's findings? It's in the public domain and a search on the House of Lords findings are there for you print down if you so wish. Have you read the hundreds of pages prior to that for there is a massive amount of information to be had. VERY important information. And have you read all the information on the subject within the threads? Have you read Boeing's, shall we say, non-report? They were inconclusive.

If you have not done that, and I have to say that you would be a genius to assimilate all the knowledge as laid bare there - in such a short space of time. Let's see, 8 or so days is it. Or is your join date wrong?

Your opinion is for you and you alone, and no one here would dispute that you have that right. But..........are you really asking me to accept that you have grasped the many years of investigation and now you are in a position to know better than any of us? Because, as you have been told many times thus far, none of us knows what happened. Surmising the cause has been is a non starter since the original inquiry.

Just trying to establish where you are coming from you understand.
CaptainFillosan is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 14:52
  #3056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
We are of course going round in circles and time to call a halt. Nothing in life is absolutely certain we must judge from evidence, experience and perhaps having been there. The house of Lords, sundry politicians, lawyers etc do not meet the above. If you wish to argue your case on lack of absolute evidence and a rule book fine, you may get a technical dismissal. Your argument that this incdent was caused by a technical malfunction is tenuous in the extreme as witnessed by the range of straws grasped. Perhaps summed up by the ludicrous idea that the crew were trying to select an emergency squark as proposed by the proposterous ch 4 documentary.
courtney is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 15:35
  #3057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
Nothing in life is absolutely certain we must judge from evidence, experience and perhaps having been there
.

Courtney, like many others on this thread I am struggling to understand exactly what it will take for you to accept that we may all have our own views and opinions on this tragic accident, but none of us know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever why the accident happened. In your quote above, even you make that statement (my underlining). In life, as you put it, we must judge from evidence (this has been done extensively.....what evidence do you have?), experience (what is yours specific to this type of operation.. 14000 hours of military/civil aviation over 38yrs is too vague) ...and perhaps having been there (my bold...have you been there, if so you may convince us that you are not a timewasting troll, but your opinions remain exactly that...opinion)
I do not wish to be rude, but it does seem that you are pi**ing into wind.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 15:43
  #3058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Brian Dixon. Thanks for the suggestion about control failure, though you must see that it is fanciful in the extreme. But as I hope I have made clear, I really do not care; I just hope you see to it that the ducks are 'right dressed'! Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 16:47
  #3059 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Mr Purdey,
It may be fanciful (as I have stated, but not in so many words), but with the evidence available, it cannot be ruled out. That said, I accept it was a simplistic overview.

The ducks have been drilled by the equivalent of the Queen's Colour Squadron so are as 'right dressed' as possible!

Courtney,
I respectfully suggest you read everything again. The AAIB investigator could not verify the detachment of a spring balance pre, or post, impact for one, so there could have been a control restriction.

Was it also 'smoke and mirrors' when your friend John Day told the House of Lords Select Committee that the SuperTANS navigation equipment was a 'black box', because it was coloured black?

If you wish to argue your case on lack of absolute evidence and a rule book
I do, because there is no evidence to support the verdict, and the rules were in place to protect deceased aircrew unable to defend themselves.

you may get a technical dismissal
I would much rather call it justice.

We are of course going round in circles and time to call a halt.
No one is forcing you to post here. If you haven't got the message that I am not in a rush to abandon friends, then you are in for a big disappointment.

If your aim is to try to get me (or someone else) so angry that we post some of the content of the proposed document prior to it going to Mr Browne, then you are in for a bigger disappointment.

You still haven't told me why the rules are absurd, by the way.

Kind regards, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 16:55
  #3060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
It is easy to treat courtney’s posts with a degree of suspicion – always general in his comments, rarely ‘technically’ specific unless in ‘paste’ mode. I can certainly understand why a non-aviator would spell ‘squawk’ phonetically as ‘squark’, but not from someone who claims to have 14000+ hours military/civil.

Then we have the
Nothing in life is absolutely certain
- maybe ROG is right.


I know, I’m being……….

AA

P.S. courtney is right about one thing though - we are covering old ground. Brian, I wish you continued good health.
Sand4Gold 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.