Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA & Argus,
Legal advice would have been the responsibility of the RAF Legal Branch.
What advice was given to the President of the BOI and to the subsequent Reviewing Officers (including the then CAS) would, I believe, have been priviliged information.
Legal advice would have been the responsibility of the RAF Legal Branch.
What advice was given to the President of the BOI and to the subsequent Reviewing Officers (including the then CAS) would, I believe, have been priviliged information.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
PKPF68-77. Welcome to the discussion, though I am puzzled by what you say about the weather conditions over the Mull and in that whole area. Ten independent witnesses, including the lighthouse keeper (a trained observer) said that they were in cloud/fog on those hillsides. The hills were thus in IMC. As the Chinook approached the coast, the crew must have seen those conditions ahead of them and should therefore have turned away. It had been suggested some weeks back on this thread that perhaps the crew could not see clearly ahead (salt spray on the windscreens perhaps?), but in that case the crew should still have turned away in the interest of their own safety. Regards as always John Purdey
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would, however, take issue over your description of the finding by the AOC, in which the AOCinC concurred, as a "Legal Decision".
The finding of the BOI, including the remarks of the AOC and AOC in C, will be an administrative finding.
Did not Day go outside his remit when he sought legal advice prior to him submitting his ‘administrative finding’ to his AOC-in-C? Day, under questioning, places much importance to the legal input he received in coming to the conclusion he did. Surely interested parties have a right to challenge that legal advice which was - allegedly - pivotal in finding Tapper/Cook grossly negligent?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
PKPF68-77. Thanks. I must be missing something here, but since the evidence re actual conditions on the Mull seems so certain, I do not quite see how evidence of conditions at Machrihanish, West Freugh, Prestwick, Ailsa Craig and Isla can shed any light on the discussion? Regards. John Purdey
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
The Yachtsman, in his ORIGINAL evidence to the BOI stated that he was "2NM SW of the Mull" and that the visibility was "1 NM limited by haze".
The Hillwalker, Mr Ellacott, stated " I heard the sound of a propellor going around for about four or five seconds and then I heard an explosion...... Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". "It was difficult to say how far I was from the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards."
The Yachtsman, in his ORIGINAL evidence to the BOI stated that he was "2NM SW of the Mull" and that the visibility was "1 NM limited by haze".
The Hillwalker, Mr Ellacott, stated " I heard the sound of a propellor going around for about four or five seconds and then I heard an explosion...... Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". "It was difficult to say how far I was from the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards."
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
Ancient Aviator,
I did, indeed, ask that very question of the MoD and was advised that all information was subject to legal priviledge. Mr Day was asked about the legal advice by the House of Lords Select Committee.
See Sep 2001, paras 332 - 338 inclusive.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...25/1092720.htm
PKPF68-77,
many thanks for the comments on the weather. We have never had a problem with the evidence of those on the Mull who, as you say, would be unable to comment on the extent of the cloud (apart from that which surrounded them). Mr Holbrook is the only witness looking at the Mull from the same direction as the pilots. I believe this witness should have been given more regard that that which was shown to him.
Why the pilots didn't turn is the crux of the matter. Serviceability of the aircraft prior to impact cannot be absolutely confirmed and why, following the selection of the next waypoint, did they continue on the same heading? Sadly, without a cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder, we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I did, indeed, ask that very question of the MoD and was advised that all information was subject to legal priviledge. Mr Day was asked about the legal advice by the House of Lords Select Committee.
See Sep 2001, paras 332 - 338 inclusive.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...25/1092720.htm
PKPF68-77,
many thanks for the comments on the weather. We have never had a problem with the evidence of those on the Mull who, as you say, would be unable to comment on the extent of the cloud (apart from that which surrounded them). Mr Holbrook is the only witness looking at the Mull from the same direction as the pilots. I believe this witness should have been given more regard that that which was shown to him.
Why the pilots didn't turn is the crux of the matter. Serviceability of the aircraft prior to impact cannot be absolutely confirmed and why, following the selection of the next waypoint, did they continue on the same heading? Sadly, without a cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder, we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Indeed, PKPF68-77.
Mr Holbrook's evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee can be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...25/1101602.htm
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Mr Holbrook's evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee can be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...25/1101602.htm
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
I was trying to describe how you get a layer of mist, of limited depth, following the slope. This is a special case of up slope fog occurring when the on shore wind is strong and the slope profile suitable such that the layer nearest the ground is compressed, speeds up, and hence forms mist in advance of the bulk of the air mass. It is a common enough phenomenon in those parts, thin layer of mist running up the slopes – a classic view can be had when a “Levante” blows against the water catchment slopes at Gib – a layer as thin as one metre can be had the full length of the slope.
It has perhaps only recently been understood with the study of windfarm placement on hills – a theoretical paper that quantifies the effect is:
BASIC METEOROLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EXPLOITATION
OF WIND ENERGY IN THE
ATMOSPHERIC BOUNDARY LAYER
by
Hartwig Dobesch
Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG)
Vienna, Austria
and
Georg Kury
ENAIRGY
Vienna, Austria
This is heavy going but there are lighter explanations available on the web if you look around.
The significance here is that even a thin, whispy such layer blurs surface detail – thicker obscures objects such as trees and buildings – making visual judgment of range difficult.
The orographic cloud higher up denies larger topographical features as references.
My experience in the NW of Scotland is that in the conditions you describe <<In a humid southerly, say, Ailsa Craig and the hills on the Mull are forming their own weather.>> such effects are common, to be expected, and with a forecast predictable.
Local witnesses I have spoken to support the view that these expected conditions were the case that day.
I believe that they were not in fog as they approached the high ground until the last seconds but had a problem judging the range to go – at their height in the crucial period they would have been below the local orographic cloud which would have extended a significant way before the landmass.
.
You are not the only one to wonder why the fishermen were not called as witnesses to the weather – a helo pilot who had been flying around the Mull that day and who attended the scene 45 mins after the crash had seen the fishermen and likewise wondered why they had not been called – he was also amazed that he himself had not.
The only explanation that seems logical is that it suited the MOD to stick with the generally bad weather scenario in which the pilots had made the wrong decisions – easy to sell to the public.
.
You (and others) say they continued straight on after the waypoint change – this was not so:
If you refer to the map in my post 3095 (and there’s a few following that may interest you), they made a significant turn to the right to 035 mag, which appears deliberate and planned as this was the course setting found on the handling pilot’s Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) course selector.
035m takes you from the position of waypoint change to the crash site.
From Aldergrove to the position of waypoint change was a straight line of 027m.
As the handling pilot would surely have had 027m on his course selector for a journey of nearly 40 miles (including many miles over the Antrim Hills where weather was patchy) it seems reasonable to say that the setting of 035m was deliberately set and not just coincidentally at that figure.
People familiar with HSIs would probably be puzzled by this – by setting the course selector on a particular bearing, this would be your preferred track to a navaid or a waypoint in your nav computer – you would then have the track bars to help keep you on track – there would not be any point setting such a course if you had no navaid or waypoint to refer to.
No here’s the rub – there was no fixed navaid in that direction that they could have worked off – nor a waypoint in the SuperTANS.
So what were they working off?
Whatever it was sure screwed up their distance judgment – and in the conditions described above the Mk1 eyeball couldn’t over ride it.
I was trying to describe how you get a layer of mist, of limited depth, following the slope. This is a special case of up slope fog occurring when the on shore wind is strong and the slope profile suitable such that the layer nearest the ground is compressed, speeds up, and hence forms mist in advance of the bulk of the air mass. It is a common enough phenomenon in those parts, thin layer of mist running up the slopes – a classic view can be had when a “Levante” blows against the water catchment slopes at Gib – a layer as thin as one metre can be had the full length of the slope.
It has perhaps only recently been understood with the study of windfarm placement on hills – a theoretical paper that quantifies the effect is:
BASIC METEOROLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EXPLOITATION
OF WIND ENERGY IN THE
ATMOSPHERIC BOUNDARY LAYER
by
Hartwig Dobesch
Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG)
Vienna, Austria
and
Georg Kury
ENAIRGY
Vienna, Austria
This is heavy going but there are lighter explanations available on the web if you look around.
The significance here is that even a thin, whispy such layer blurs surface detail – thicker obscures objects such as trees and buildings – making visual judgment of range difficult.
The orographic cloud higher up denies larger topographical features as references.
My experience in the NW of Scotland is that in the conditions you describe <<In a humid southerly, say, Ailsa Craig and the hills on the Mull are forming their own weather.>> such effects are common, to be expected, and with a forecast predictable.
Local witnesses I have spoken to support the view that these expected conditions were the case that day.
I believe that they were not in fog as they approached the high ground until the last seconds but had a problem judging the range to go – at their height in the crucial period they would have been below the local orographic cloud which would have extended a significant way before the landmass.
.
You are not the only one to wonder why the fishermen were not called as witnesses to the weather – a helo pilot who had been flying around the Mull that day and who attended the scene 45 mins after the crash had seen the fishermen and likewise wondered why they had not been called – he was also amazed that he himself had not.
The only explanation that seems logical is that it suited the MOD to stick with the generally bad weather scenario in which the pilots had made the wrong decisions – easy to sell to the public.
.
You (and others) say they continued straight on after the waypoint change – this was not so:
If you refer to the map in my post 3095 (and there’s a few following that may interest you), they made a significant turn to the right to 035 mag, which appears deliberate and planned as this was the course setting found on the handling pilot’s Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) course selector.
035m takes you from the position of waypoint change to the crash site.
From Aldergrove to the position of waypoint change was a straight line of 027m.
As the handling pilot would surely have had 027m on his course selector for a journey of nearly 40 miles (including many miles over the Antrim Hills where weather was patchy) it seems reasonable to say that the setting of 035m was deliberately set and not just coincidentally at that figure.
People familiar with HSIs would probably be puzzled by this – by setting the course selector on a particular bearing, this would be your preferred track to a navaid or a waypoint in your nav computer – you would then have the track bars to help keep you on track – there would not be any point setting such a course if you had no navaid or waypoint to refer to.
No here’s the rub – there was no fixed navaid in that direction that they could have worked off – nor a waypoint in the SuperTANS.
So what were they working off?
Whatever it was sure screwed up their distance judgment – and in the conditions described above the Mk1 eyeball couldn’t over ride it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Aviator
My apologies, I should have replied yesterday.
You asked " Did not Day go outside his remit?". I fail to see how he could do so as it was his Board of Inquiry - constituted by him. If, following investigation by the Board (who investigate on his behalf), it is apparent that further matters require investigation then (to borrow the favourite phrase of current incumbant at 10 Downing Street) it is "right and proper" to adjust the Terms of Reference if necessary.
My apologies, I should have replied yesterday.
You asked " Did not Day go outside his remit?". I fail to see how he could do so as it was his Board of Inquiry - constituted by him. If, following investigation by the Board (who investigate on his behalf), it is apparent that further matters require investigation then (to borrow the favourite phrase of current incumbant at 10 Downing Street) it is "right and proper" to adjust the Terms of Reference if necessary.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much independence there then?
Of course this matter has been considered by more than one truly independent bodies. As we know, their findings differ somewhat from those of Day and Wrattan.
Of course this matter has been considered by more than one truly independent bodies. As we know, their findings differ somewhat from those of Day and Wrattan.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou - my thoughts.
Day was about to make a decision on a BOI that he - as AOC - convened; he realised (see above) the enormity of his decision (which he must of made at that point using the guidelines that were applicable at the time) but he was sufficiently unsure of himself - so he chose to seek legal advice. Prior to that advice, Day was not confident of the facts to apply the rules to find Tapper/Cook grossly negligent.
Clearly, his legal advisor(s) managed to assuage him of any doubts that he may have had. That need by Day to seek a legal interpretation of guidelines that were straightforward to a layman needs to be clarified/challenged in an open forum. If the rules were ambiguous enough that legal advice was needed to achieve an administrative finding of grossly negligent, then the BOI process - as applied in this instance - could be perceived as been fundamentally flawed. Pulford applied the guidelines (without legal advice) and came to a different conclusion.
AA
House Of Lords Committee to review Chinook ZD 576 crash
332. Can you tell me the circumstances in which you felt it necessary to take legal advice in this case?
A. Because I realised the enormity of the decision I was about to make and I felt it right to take legal advice.
333. What sort of legal advice did you feel would help you? You were deciding the facts, were you not?
A. I was deciding on the facts but I wanted to know basically if the definition of "no doubt whatsoever" was a definition which was achievable or not.
332. Can you tell me the circumstances in which you felt it necessary to take legal advice in this case?
A. Because I realised the enormity of the decision I was about to make and I felt it right to take legal advice.
333. What sort of legal advice did you feel would help you? You were deciding the facts, were you not?
A. I was deciding on the facts but I wanted to know basically if the definition of "no doubt whatsoever" was a definition which was achievable or not.
Day was about to make a decision on a BOI that he - as AOC - convened; he realised (see above) the enormity of his decision (which he must of made at that point using the guidelines that were applicable at the time) but he was sufficiently unsure of himself - so he chose to seek legal advice. Prior to that advice, Day was not confident of the facts to apply the rules to find Tapper/Cook grossly negligent.
Clearly, his legal advisor(s) managed to assuage him of any doubts that he may have had. That need by Day to seek a legal interpretation of guidelines that were straightforward to a layman needs to be clarified/challenged in an open forum. If the rules were ambiguous enough that legal advice was needed to achieve an administrative finding of grossly negligent, then the BOI process - as applied in this instance - could be perceived as been fundamentally flawed. Pulford applied the guidelines (without legal advice) and came to a different conclusion.
AA
Last edited by Sand4Gold; 10th Feb 2008 at 16:16.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Ancient Aviator. You really cannot have it both ways. You say that Day must have been unsure of himself in order to have sought legal advice. Had he not done so, then as surely as the night follows day (no pun intended!) you would now be asking why he did NOT seek legal advice!
With continued regards, but also with a degree of exasperation with some of our nit-pickers, John Purdey.
With continued regards, but also with a degree of exasperation with some of our nit-pickers, 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
Hi everyone.
Cazatou wrote:
Not so. The right and proper thing would have been to reconvene the Board of Inquiry.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Cazatou wrote:
You asked " Did not Day go outside his remit?". I fail to see how he could do so as it was his Board of Inquiry - constituted by him. If, following investigation by the Board (who investigate on his behalf), it is apparent that further matters require investigation then (to borrow the favourite phrase of current incumbant at 10 Downing Street) it is "right and proper" to adjust the Terms of Reference if necessary.
Regards,
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
Same thing really.
It is not unusual for Terms of Reference to be adjusted or amplified as a BOI progresses and matters are revealed that were not apparent in the immediate aftermath of an accident.
It must be remembered that the BOI is the Convening Officers BOI and the President and Members of the Board are acting on behalf of the Convening Officer. At the time of this BOI the number of extant BOI's in No 1 Gp was well into double figures - it would have been impossible for the AOC to have conducted all those inquiries and run 1 Gp at the same time.
Having said that it would have been pointless to reconvene the BOI team to get them to ask a question on legal matters that he could could ask himself. It would also reduce the risk of nuances being lost in transmission.
Same thing really.
It is not unusual for Terms of Reference to be adjusted or amplified as a BOI progresses and matters are revealed that were not apparent in the immediate aftermath of an accident.
It must be remembered that the BOI is the Convening Officers BOI and the President and Members of the Board are acting on behalf of the Convening Officer. At the time of this BOI the number of extant BOI's in No 1 Gp was well into double figures - it would have been impossible for the AOC to have conducted all those inquiries and run 1 Gp at the same time.
Having said that it would have been pointless to reconvene the BOI team to get them to ask a question on legal matters that he could could ask himself. It would also reduce the risk of nuances being lost in transmission.
Last edited by cazatou; 11th Feb 2008 at 20:24.
Six-to-eight weeks certainly drags on, doesn't it?
Not that it's specific to Brian-et-al's line of enquiry, but it was interesting to note that an HC2 was in dock at a secret SW base recently having undergone a UFCM (undemanded flying-control movement, if my memory serves me well). Aircraft pitched (undemanded) in the cruise, did not initially respond to corrective movement then over-responded after a delay. As I say, not specific to this tale - but it's interesting to see these things happen. Happily, in this instance, there wasn't a mountain in front and there weren't 29 irreplaceable people wiped off the surface of the Earth.
Not that it's specific to Brian-et-al's line of enquiry, but it was interesting to note that an HC2 was in dock at a secret SW base recently having undergone a UFCM (undemanded flying-control movement, if my memory serves me well). Aircraft pitched (undemanded) in the cruise, did not initially respond to corrective movement then over-responded after a delay. As I say, not specific to this tale - but it's interesting to see these things happen. Happily, in this instance, there wasn't a mountain in front and there weren't 29 irreplaceable people wiped off the surface of the Earth.
Thud and Blunder
My view is that it is relevant, if only to highlight (again) the MoD's persistent claims that everything is an isolated incident. Remember, they have hitherto refused to consider anything but “compelling new evidence”, and stated that any such evidence MUST relate directly to ZD576. That is, trends are ignored; and trend analysis and preventative action are fundamental to maintaining airworthiness.
My view is that it is relevant, if only to highlight (again) the MoD's persistent claims that everything is an isolated incident. Remember, they have hitherto refused to consider anything but “compelling new evidence”, and stated that any such evidence MUST relate directly to ZD576. That is, trends are ignored; and trend analysis and preventative action are fundamental to maintaining airworthiness.
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
Hope you are well T & B. It would be interesting to know if a cause was found for this recent incident. If no cause was found, I wonder if any evidence (other than human testimony) was found during the subsequent investigation.
Cazatou,
as usual, a valid point. However, Mr Wratten stated to the HoL Select Committee, that the BoI was sent back to the President. I wonder why the legal issue could not have been included at that point? If the terms of reference of the BoI were changed at some point during the procedure, I would have expected a written record of the amendment to have been made somewhere. As it stands, I can't find any record of such amendment(s).
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Cazatou,
as usual, a valid point. However, Mr Wratten stated to the HoL Select Committee, that the BoI was sent back to the President. I wonder why the legal issue could not have been included at that point? If the terms of reference of the BoI were changed at some point during the procedure, I would have expected a written record of the amendment to have been made somewhere. As it stands, I can't find any record of such amendment(s).
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Board of Inquiry procedure is governed by rules made under section 135 of the Air Force Act 1955 and by The Queen's Regulations for the RAF, chapter 17. The RAF Manual of Flight Safety AP 3207 published by the Inspectorate of Flight Safety and in force at the time of the accident provided in paragraph 9 of Annex G to Chapter 8
It must be remembered that the BOI is the Convening Officers BOI and the President and Members of the Board are acting on behalf of the Convening Officer.
At the time of this BOI the number of extant BOI's in No 1 Gp was well into double figures
Irrelevant to this investigation.
it would have been impossible for the AOC to have conducted all those inquiries and run 1 Gp at the same time.
Day was the convening/reviewing officer - he was not required to conduct the investigation day-by-day, only to seek an 'administrative finding' based on the facts.
Having said that it would have been pointless to reconvene the BOI team to get them to ask a question on legal matters that he could could ask himself.
If a somewhat uncertain reviewing officer seeks legal council (and Argus makes a very valid point here) regarding those guidelines/procedures, then the very least that should of happened is that the investigation should have been afforded a judicial review prior to the report's release.
This finding has had a devastating effect on the families concerned, and the vast majority of contributors to this Thread disagree with Day’s finding – including a House of Lords Committee that reviewed the Chinook crash.
(John Purdey) Nit picking, I hardly think so.
AA
Last edited by Sand4Gold; 12th Feb 2008 at 13:43.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Aviator
You do live in a closeted world. BOI's as submitted to the Convening Officer are not Holy Writ.
I can think of many BOI's where the President was told to take the BOI presented to the Convening Officer away and do it again properly. It is not unknown for Presidents of BOI's to be replaced and the Boards started again.
In my time in the RAF there was one Aircraft Accident for approximately every fortnight I served- and I was in for more than 31 years. A total of 764 accidents with fatalities running into hundreds.
Then there were the "Near Accidents" like the VC 10 full of passengers that missed America. I don't mean they missed the USA -they missed America -all of it. When finally located by USAF Air Defence radar they were over northern Greenland some 510 NM North of their planned track heading for the magnetic North Pole and locked into an almost imperceptable turn to the right at the rate of 24 degrees per hour.
The aim of a BOI is to find out what happened so that measures can be put in place to prevent it happening again. One must always remember, however, that no system is foolproof - fools are too ingenious.
You do live in a closeted world. BOI's as submitted to the Convening Officer are not Holy Writ.
I can think of many BOI's where the President was told to take the BOI presented to the Convening Officer away and do it again properly. It is not unknown for Presidents of BOI's to be replaced and the Boards started again.
In my time in the RAF there was one Aircraft Accident for approximately every fortnight I served- and I was in for more than 31 years. A total of 764 accidents with fatalities running into hundreds.
Then there were the "Near Accidents" like the VC 10 full of passengers that missed America. I don't mean they missed the USA -they missed America -all of it. When finally located by USAF Air Defence radar they were over northern Greenland some 510 NM North of their planned track heading for the magnetic North Pole and locked into an almost imperceptable turn to the right at the rate of 24 degrees per hour.
The aim of a BOI is to find out what happened so that measures can be put in place to prevent it happening again. One must always remember, however, that no system is foolproof - fools are too ingenious.
Last edited by cazatou; 12th Feb 2008 at 19:42.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Ancient Aviator. Call it nit-picking if you wish, (or in this case selective quotation), but for example although the self-appointed HoL committee disagreed wih the eventual findings, their opinion was then rejected by a free vote of the whole House. Meanwhile, no-one as far as I have seen has ever suggested that the rules in force at the time governing BsofI were not followed; or can you quote an example? Regards. John Purdey