Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about nit picking – well here goes:
Yep, slip of the fingers – if you read the earlier (perhaps less hurried) texts it would have been obvious what I meant – the QFE or whatever that gives zero at ground level on the strip/pad that you are intending to land on. You don’t need an explanation of its usefulness or the problems if you leave it set thus while on route do you? (Don’t worry Cazatou, tongue in cheek again.)
.
Now for specifically Cazatou’s cracks:
<<"They had turned towards it" - orographic wind effect?>>
This was addressed in the Boeing document “Analysis of Available Data” (Mitchel) that I recommended you all read some years ago – the author had it that the turn to the right was intentional and not attributable to drift as this turn was into the wind. If you did some chart work and used that document as a working template, you might begin to get a grasp of what happened here.
.
<<"They had started to slow down" - orographic wind effect?>>
Quite the opposite – again the above Boeing document. In it, the detailed analysis has it that the TAS had reduced by about 20 kts (from memory) but this was hidden by the increased wind as they approached the landmass so that the ground speed remained steady.
This is an important point – good analysis yielded a vital clue – the reduction in air speed over that last leg implied that they were not intending continuing route flying at their high cruise speed, nor that they were intending (that close in) to go over the Mull as to slow down while at high speed in clean air whilst staying level (over much of that last leg anyway) would have required just about the lowest power setting in their whole flight profile – not the best for emergencies. The power settings found were consistent with the engines (FADEC and other engine management controls, turbine lag, etc) not having had time to respond to the last minute pull-up – they were still matched at that low level confirming the result of Mitchel’s analysis re air speed.
.
<<"They had the right QFI for it" - see above post.>>
Why you of all people ask this – you were involved in this aspect in some detail some time ago. I can’t be bothered checking now but I thought it was you who pointed out that a regional QNH should be set whilst en route.
Perhaps I’m mistaken but I thought it was also you who gave an explanation of the RADALT alarm being on minimum – seem to recall it was something like “… for imminent landing in adverse conditions …” or similar.
So how come the following?:
<<"radalt alarm was on MIN" - Planned to Fly visually at low level in undulating terrain.>>
You’re not trying to undo those little bills, are you? Trying to get back into the flock?
They had two altimeters set consistent with a landing at an area just ahead , that they had just turned directly towards, that had been used before by Chinooks (Flt Lt Tapper himself had landed there on previous occasion(s)) – for which waypoint A was an obvious inner marker.
.
<<"Chinooks had landed there before" - My Father once had a moderate (for 1949) win on the Pools; it doesn't mean I will.>>
I think you have to be in it to win it – same with any game.
.
<<"They had a tactical callsign consistant with a SAR exercise" Are you sure you mean "Search and Rescue"?>>
I was told that it was consistent with an exercise of picking up a downed airman. What do you make of the call sign used?
.
And still zilch from anyone on ARS6 modules – must be super secret, eh?
Yep, slip of the fingers – if you read the earlier (perhaps less hurried) texts it would have been obvious what I meant – the QFE or whatever that gives zero at ground level on the strip/pad that you are intending to land on. You don’t need an explanation of its usefulness or the problems if you leave it set thus while on route do you? (Don’t worry Cazatou, tongue in cheek again.)
.
Now for specifically Cazatou’s cracks:
<<"They had turned towards it" - orographic wind effect?>>
This was addressed in the Boeing document “Analysis of Available Data” (Mitchel) that I recommended you all read some years ago – the author had it that the turn to the right was intentional and not attributable to drift as this turn was into the wind. If you did some chart work and used that document as a working template, you might begin to get a grasp of what happened here.
.
<<"They had started to slow down" - orographic wind effect?>>
Quite the opposite – again the above Boeing document. In it, the detailed analysis has it that the TAS had reduced by about 20 kts (from memory) but this was hidden by the increased wind as they approached the landmass so that the ground speed remained steady.
This is an important point – good analysis yielded a vital clue – the reduction in air speed over that last leg implied that they were not intending continuing route flying at their high cruise speed, nor that they were intending (that close in) to go over the Mull as to slow down while at high speed in clean air whilst staying level (over much of that last leg anyway) would have required just about the lowest power setting in their whole flight profile – not the best for emergencies. The power settings found were consistent with the engines (FADEC and other engine management controls, turbine lag, etc) not having had time to respond to the last minute pull-up – they were still matched at that low level confirming the result of Mitchel’s analysis re air speed.
.
<<"They had the right QFI for it" - see above post.>>
Why you of all people ask this – you were involved in this aspect in some detail some time ago. I can’t be bothered checking now but I thought it was you who pointed out that a regional QNH should be set whilst en route.
Perhaps I’m mistaken but I thought it was also you who gave an explanation of the RADALT alarm being on minimum – seem to recall it was something like “… for imminent landing in adverse conditions …” or similar.
So how come the following?:
<<"radalt alarm was on MIN" - Planned to Fly visually at low level in undulating terrain.>>
You’re not trying to undo those little bills, are you? Trying to get back into the flock?
They had two altimeters set consistent with a landing at an area just ahead , that they had just turned directly towards, that had been used before by Chinooks (Flt Lt Tapper himself had landed there on previous occasion(s)) – for which waypoint A was an obvious inner marker.
.
<<"Chinooks had landed there before" - My Father once had a moderate (for 1949) win on the Pools; it doesn't mean I will.>>
I think you have to be in it to win it – same with any game.
.
<<"They had a tactical callsign consistant with a SAR exercise" Are you sure you mean "Search and Rescue"?>>
I was told that it was consistent with an exercise of picking up a downed airman. What do you make of the call sign used?
.
And still zilch from anyone on ARS6 modules – must be super secret, eh?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Seldomfitforpurpose.
My inadvertence; notably a couple of miles off the Sicilian coast in marginal conditions that got progressively worse. I had not intended to enter IMC when I set out. Hope that is clear enough.
More important perhaps, who said the Chinook's entry into IMC was inadvertent?
REgards JP
My inadvertence; notably a couple of miles off the Sicilian coast in marginal conditions that got progressively worse. I had not intended to enter IMC when I set out. Hope that is clear enough.
More important perhaps, who said the Chinook's entry into IMC was inadvertent?
REgards JP
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And still zilch from anyone on ARS6 modules – must be super secret, eh?"
No Walter the reason for the above statement is the equipment you mention, or any similar equipment has no bearing on this case and it is you who simply cannot see or, which is even sadder accept that fact.
I spent the first 15 years of my service life as an avionics technician so I speak with some authority when I tell you that the notion of the equipment you mention being secretly fitted under the noses of all those involved with maintaining ZD576 is simply preposterous.
If you also honestly believe that the only 4 people who had knowledge of what you are suggesting perished in this accident then you are indeed living in cloud cuckoo land.
The paper and knowledge trail for what you suggest would have been fairly extensive. The equipment, unless you are now implying it was some sort of hand held device that only the crew knew about, would have needed fitting to the aircraft. This would have involved technicians to install it and at minimum the JENGO to sign off the relevant section of the Form 700.
If the scenario you suggest took place then the authorising officer for this sortie would have known as would the executive chain through to Sqn Cdr and probably higher. Bearing in mind the close knit community that SF is it is almost certain that other team members would have also been aware.
With this many people being involved I cannot begin imagine what odds Ladbrokes would offer that NOT ONE person has ever come forward to offer any corroborating evidence to support your theory.
In this day and age there is no such thing as a secret and we witness this daily with revelation after revelation being flashed before our eyes on Sky news and the like about the shenanigans in the very highest corridors of power. Human nature being what it is we all like to "share" information and if you still believe that not a hint of what you propose has ever been leaked over the many years since the crash.................
Whats suddenly struck home is the realisation that I have just wasted 20 minutes of my life offering you a sound and rational argument as to why you are wrong. I know that as sure as the sun comes up in the morning you will continue to rant about "secret seals" and the like for ever more as a sound of mind person would by now have taken the hint.
Walter this thread has been graced by some of the most professional and informed folk the military aviation community has and not one of those folk has offered even the tiniest crumb of support to you so surely it's time for you to accept the blindingly obvious and move on.
No Walter the reason for the above statement is the equipment you mention, or any similar equipment has no bearing on this case and it is you who simply cannot see or, which is even sadder accept that fact.
I spent the first 15 years of my service life as an avionics technician so I speak with some authority when I tell you that the notion of the equipment you mention being secretly fitted under the noses of all those involved with maintaining ZD576 is simply preposterous.
If you also honestly believe that the only 4 people who had knowledge of what you are suggesting perished in this accident then you are indeed living in cloud cuckoo land.
The paper and knowledge trail for what you suggest would have been fairly extensive. The equipment, unless you are now implying it was some sort of hand held device that only the crew knew about, would have needed fitting to the aircraft. This would have involved technicians to install it and at minimum the JENGO to sign off the relevant section of the Form 700.
If the scenario you suggest took place then the authorising officer for this sortie would have known as would the executive chain through to Sqn Cdr and probably higher. Bearing in mind the close knit community that SF is it is almost certain that other team members would have also been aware.
With this many people being involved I cannot begin imagine what odds Ladbrokes would offer that NOT ONE person has ever come forward to offer any corroborating evidence to support your theory.
In this day and age there is no such thing as a secret and we witness this daily with revelation after revelation being flashed before our eyes on Sky news and the like about the shenanigans in the very highest corridors of power. Human nature being what it is we all like to "share" information and if you still believe that not a hint of what you propose has ever been leaked over the many years since the crash.................
Whats suddenly struck home is the realisation that I have just wasted 20 minutes of my life offering you a sound and rational argument as to why you are wrong. I know that as sure as the sun comes up in the morning you will continue to rant about "secret seals" and the like for ever more as a sound of mind person would by now have taken the hint.
Walter this thread has been graced by some of the most professional and informed folk the military aviation community has and not one of those folk has offered even the tiniest crumb of support to you so surely it's time for you to accept the blindingly obvious and move on.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Not quite sure what the difference is between the incident you describe yourself as encountering and what probably happened to ZD576 but what really confuses me now is
"More important perhaps, who said the Chinook's entry into IMC was inadvertent?"
So you are trying to tell me that when you did it it was OK as it was inadvertent, a mistake or as you say something you had not planned to do but, in your opinion the crew of ZD576 planned to deliberately fly in to IMC?
How on earth can you arrive at that conclusion?
Not quite sure what the difference is between the incident you describe yourself as encountering and what probably happened to ZD576 but what really confuses me now is
"More important perhaps, who said the Chinook's entry into IMC was inadvertent?"
So you are trying to tell me that when you did it it was OK as it was inadvertent, a mistake or as you say something you had not planned to do but, in your opinion the crew of ZD576 planned to deliberately fly in to IMC?
How on earth can you arrive at that conclusion?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter this thread has been graced by some of the most professional and informed folk the military aviation community has and not one of those folk has offered even the tiniest crumb of support to you so surely it's time for you to accept the blindingly obvious and move on.
Oh btw. The letter I (as in QFI) is 8 letters to right of E (as in QFE) - hardly a slip!
I was not a Captain as my pseudo might suggest but I was a WO and I was not slow in taking people like you on one side for a sharp word. Oh that I could do that now! But then again there were those that would not listen...........
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Could you humor me and tell me what I should read into your post and a previous post as I am more than a little confused.
You said in answer to Daavar
"But in this particular case the crew were well outside the rules of sound airmanship in pressing on in those conditions. If they had been on any kind of emergency mission, as I am sure many of our gallant Helo crews will testify (and no-one admires their skill and dedication more than I do), then, yes, risks must be taken. But this was a simple VIP transit flight; no risk of any kind could possibly be justified."
Which justifies, in your mind the award of the gross negligence finding in this case.
You then go on to reply to my earlier question
"My inadvertence; notably a couple of miles off the Sicilian coast in marginal conditions that got progressively worse. I had not intended to enter IMC when I set out."
I have no idea what type of sortie you were on with regards to the above but, and I am making an assumption here always dangerous I know, if you do not regard your incident as an act of gross negligence, which was my original question then how, bearing in mind the similarities do you categorically state these guys are guilty as charged
Could you also tell me how you think the Chinook went IMC if it was not inadvertently.
Could you humor me and tell me what I should read into your post and a previous post as I am more than a little confused.
You said in answer to Daavar
"But in this particular case the crew were well outside the rules of sound airmanship in pressing on in those conditions. If they had been on any kind of emergency mission, as I am sure many of our gallant Helo crews will testify (and no-one admires their skill and dedication more than I do), then, yes, risks must be taken. But this was a simple VIP transit flight; no risk of any kind could possibly be justified."
Which justifies, in your mind the award of the gross negligence finding in this case.
You then go on to reply to my earlier question
"My inadvertence; notably a couple of miles off the Sicilian coast in marginal conditions that got progressively worse. I had not intended to enter IMC when I set out."
I have no idea what type of sortie you were on with regards to the above but, and I am making an assumption here always dangerous I know, if you do not regard your incident as an act of gross negligence, which was my original question then how, bearing in mind the similarities do you categorically state these guys are guilty as charged
Could you also tell me how you think the Chinook went IMC if it was not inadvertently.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldomfitforpurpose
I am so glad that the system is not a secret – perhaps just for academic and general interest for the readers who do not have your avionics background, you could describe what (technically as opposed to administratively) would be involved in fitting such equipment in an HC2?
And how did the range/bearing data get to the HSIs from that unit (or equivalent) in the later HC2s?
An example of one manufacturers blurb makes it seem very simple:
<<The AN/ARS-6(V) can operate as a stand-alone system that can be installed on any aircraft with connections limited to aircraft power and the voice intercom system. It can also be installed as a data bus system using ARINC 429 or MIL-STD-1553 bus controllers and displays that support an integrated cockpit design.
When PLS is installed as a data bus system, range and steering data can be automatically transferred to the onboard navigation system. This sets the survivor's position as a "way-point."
The navigation system can direct the pilot to the survivor via a flight director display, which has proved to be a very successful tool on several of the military's most sophisticated aircraft. The MIL-STD-1553 or ARINC 429 systems can be ordered in this configuration; stand-alone systems can be upgraded at a later date, with either interface available as a plug-in circuit card.>>
Any comment?
I am glad you mentioned the paperwork, though:
<< This would have involved technicians to install it and at minimum the JENGO to sign off the relevant section of the Form 700.>>
But techs worked on ZD576’s nav system just before the flight and no 700 was raised, was it? The reason Flt Lt Tapper gave for the work did not make sense either, did it? And no one else higher up had a say in that work on this occasion, did they?
So what is the worth and relevance of your description of the procedure normally followed/required?
.
For what it’s worth, I do not believe that FADEC problems have any bearing on this case either but that hasn’t stopped full and lengthy discussion about that system.
.
Regarding people not coming forward, I recall one instance where an individual made an innocent quip about the dimensions of a PRC112 handset and its familiarity – judging by his next post, he had been told to shut up.
May not be a secret but what a taboo subject it seems to be.
It is, after all, an interesting system of great utility – I’m sure many would love to know more about it. Pray tell.
.
Even if I am completely wrong as to what they were referring to on that final leg, please focus on what the a/c was doing until just before impact – from the analysis of available data and local witnesses recollections of helicopter activity in that area:
It sure as hell looks like they were going in to land or closely pass that landing area but overshot;
Knowing the typical local conditions that they most probably were in, they should not have approached so quickly relying on visual judgment alone and these conditions would not have afforded them visual judgment that would have contradicted any instrument reading they may have had – that is, an incorrect range would not have been picked up until it was too late.
Is there anything else that could have misled them other than the system that I have suggested?
I am so glad that the system is not a secret – perhaps just for academic and general interest for the readers who do not have your avionics background, you could describe what (technically as opposed to administratively) would be involved in fitting such equipment in an HC2?
And how did the range/bearing data get to the HSIs from that unit (or equivalent) in the later HC2s?
An example of one manufacturers blurb makes it seem very simple:
<<The AN/ARS-6(V) can operate as a stand-alone system that can be installed on any aircraft with connections limited to aircraft power and the voice intercom system. It can also be installed as a data bus system using ARINC 429 or MIL-STD-1553 bus controllers and displays that support an integrated cockpit design.
When PLS is installed as a data bus system, range and steering data can be automatically transferred to the onboard navigation system. This sets the survivor's position as a "way-point."
The navigation system can direct the pilot to the survivor via a flight director display, which has proved to be a very successful tool on several of the military's most sophisticated aircraft. The MIL-STD-1553 or ARINC 429 systems can be ordered in this configuration; stand-alone systems can be upgraded at a later date, with either interface available as a plug-in circuit card.>>
Any comment?
I am glad you mentioned the paperwork, though:
<< This would have involved technicians to install it and at minimum the JENGO to sign off the relevant section of the Form 700.>>
But techs worked on ZD576’s nav system just before the flight and no 700 was raised, was it? The reason Flt Lt Tapper gave for the work did not make sense either, did it? And no one else higher up had a say in that work on this occasion, did they?
So what is the worth and relevance of your description of the procedure normally followed/required?
.
For what it’s worth, I do not believe that FADEC problems have any bearing on this case either but that hasn’t stopped full and lengthy discussion about that system.
.
Regarding people not coming forward, I recall one instance where an individual made an innocent quip about the dimensions of a PRC112 handset and its familiarity – judging by his next post, he had been told to shut up.
May not be a secret but what a taboo subject it seems to be.
It is, after all, an interesting system of great utility – I’m sure many would love to know more about it. Pray tell.
.
Even if I am completely wrong as to what they were referring to on that final leg, please focus on what the a/c was doing until just before impact – from the analysis of available data and local witnesses recollections of helicopter activity in that area:
It sure as hell looks like they were going in to land or closely pass that landing area but overshot;
Knowing the typical local conditions that they most probably were in, they should not have approached so quickly relying on visual judgment alone and these conditions would not have afforded them visual judgment that would have contradicted any instrument reading they may have had – that is, an incorrect range would not have been picked up until it was too late.
Is there anything else that could have misled them other than the system that I have suggested?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Aviator,
In your post 3182 regarding the finding of negligence you stated: "Pulford applied the guidelines (without legal advice) and came to a different conclusion".
The Station Commander RAF Odiham found that Flt Lt Tapper had a Duty of Care in respect of his Passengers and that he had failed in that Duty. In deference to the Moderator I will use the definition from Chambers Dictionary:- "Negligence :- omission of duty especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require".
The AOC and AOC in C agreed with that view in regard of Flt Lt Tapper and extended that finding to Flt Lt Cook.
I must add that I find your assertion that the then Wg Cdr Pulford and his team did not take legal advice quite astonishing and I can only assume that he confided that to you in a private conversation. You are, I presume, senior to Air Commodore Pulford as no Junior Officer would refer to an Air Rank Officer purely by his surname - would they?
In your post 3182 regarding the finding of negligence you stated: "Pulford applied the guidelines (without legal advice) and came to a different conclusion".
The Station Commander RAF Odiham found that Flt Lt Tapper had a Duty of Care in respect of his Passengers and that he had failed in that Duty. In deference to the Moderator I will use the definition from Chambers Dictionary:- "Negligence :- omission of duty especially such care for the interests of others as the law may require".
The AOC and AOC in C agreed with that view in regard of Flt Lt Tapper and extended that finding to Flt Lt Cook.
I must add that I find your assertion that the then Wg Cdr Pulford and his team did not take legal advice quite astonishing and I can only assume that he confided that to you in a private conversation. You are, I presume, senior to Air Commodore Pulford as no Junior Officer would refer to an Air Rank Officer purely by his surname - would they?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw shucks! I guess another of <<some of the most professional and informed folk the military aviation community>> won't be shedding any light on the systems of that aircraft that has cost us so dear.
If the Hindenberg had been an RAF asset then we probably would still be arguing today whether the gas was hydrogen or not.
If the Hindenberg had been an RAF asset then we probably would still be arguing today whether the gas was hydrogen or not.
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
... and while the MoD were debating whether the gas was hydrogen or not, they would probably release the Hindenburg into service with limitations. 
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
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
Be like Dad - keep Mum (WW2 Security Slogan)
Walter,
It may have escaped your notice that quite a few of the members of the Armed Forces of the Crown are engaged on Operations in some of the less salubrious parts of the World.
Contributors to this thread who are also members of said Armed Forces are understandably reluctant to enter into debate over the precise capabilities (and technical details) of the equipment fitted to their aircraft.
You, on the other hand, want the entire specifications and capabilities of certain equipment to be aired on this thread in a vain attempt to enhance the meagre feasibility of your pet theory.
THOSE OF A NERVOUS DISPOSITION PLEASE LOOK AWAY NOW -THE NEXT BIT IS GOING TO BE RUDE
Men and Women of British and Allied Armed Forces are having their lives jeapodised by the little snippets of information that you drop into your posts to show that you "really know" what you are talking about. You are hovering on the edge of breaching the Official Secrets Act - if indeed you have not already done so.
With your total lack of sensitivity or objectiveness in the little snippets of information that you scatter - coupled with your total conviction that you are right and that any stratagem is justified to achieve your desired ends - you are a liability to the United Kingdom and her Allies.
This is, of course, purely a personal opinion - unless you good people out there know otherwise.
It may have escaped your notice that quite a few of the members of the Armed Forces of the Crown are engaged on Operations in some of the less salubrious parts of the World.
Contributors to this thread who are also members of said Armed Forces are understandably reluctant to enter into debate over the precise capabilities (and technical details) of the equipment fitted to their aircraft.
You, on the other hand, want the entire specifications and capabilities of certain equipment to be aired on this thread in a vain attempt to enhance the meagre feasibility of your pet theory.
THOSE OF A NERVOUS DISPOSITION PLEASE LOOK AWAY NOW -THE NEXT BIT IS GOING TO BE RUDE
Men and Women of British and Allied Armed Forces are having their lives jeapodised by the little snippets of information that you drop into your posts to show that you "really know" what you are talking about. You are hovering on the edge of breaching the Official Secrets Act - if indeed you have not already done so.
With your total lack of sensitivity or objectiveness in the little snippets of information that you scatter - coupled with your total conviction that you are right and that any stratagem is justified to achieve your desired ends - you are a liability to the United Kingdom and her Allies.
This is, of course, purely a personal opinion - unless you good people out there know otherwise.
K52, I wouldn't bother with that line of approach to dear old Walt. The stuff of which he writes is old, and his sources are open - no OSA risk there, and anyway I doubt you'd be able to take it to court in Oz (remember Peter "Wibble" Wright?). Try not to humour W 'cos it'll make him think he's taken seriously. Which he isn't.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PKPF68-77
I suspect the advice I have previously offered with regards to READING every page of this thread has been ignored................but going back and re reading your posts my "spidey senses" are starting to tingle
I suspect the advice I have previously offered with regards to READING every page of this thread has been ignored................but going back and re reading your posts my "spidey senses" are starting to tingle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
I have always been aware of this consideration but made the point some time ago that, as the preceding post says, it is old tech now and, in my view, it would be hard to imagine anything worse happening to our service people than what happened that day, if indeed such equipment was misused on that occasion. That is why I believe we have more to gain security wise by exploring this possibility thoroughly - the implications to us all if this was the case are that serious.
.
I do take your point that the Off Secrets Act is a powerful gag but it should not deter people who believe we live in a free and democratic society from speaking up when it is needed. If we do not live in such a society, just what is it we are trying to impose by force in those other areas of conflict that you refer to?
.
Those of you who have a mental block as to how far our security services will go to achieve their ends should have a look at the revelation in that Diana inquest that MI something had plans to assassinate Milosovic (the arranged accident thing) - if they would contemplate knocking off a head of state of a country remote from the hearts and minds of the bulk of the British public, what would they do to remove an obstacle to the peace process in NI, a part of Britain which the politicians of the time (incl. the PM) openly expressed a desire that it should just go away - an open wound that has dragged on for decades and that has affected so many of us?
We owe it to the security team that was on board to explore any possibility, however unpalatable, of this being the case.
As things stand we have not even explained why they turned in towards that landing area despite the evidence for this.
A cover up to save embarrassment of a training exercise/demonstration that went wrong is not acceptable if it is blocking inquiry into the possibility of wilful interference in any such exercise.
.
In short, I believe it better serves the public interest to fully analyse this crash than keeping it under wraps for some vague and general security considerations.
.
With regard to that dig about being in Australia (someone's recent previous post) somehow avoiding responsibility re the Off Sec Act - I recently spent 3 months in the UK specifically to do research on this case - and no doubt will be returning soon for more of the same.
I worked for years in the defence industry in the UK and take security issues seriously - in this case it is not so much being irresponsible but rather having the courage of my convictions.
.
I sincerely hope that this was just a tragic accident but, for me to be convinced, the following issues need to be addressed:
why was the weather and the a/c track misrepresented at the inquiries?;
why wasn't the existence of a previously used landing area so near the crash site mentioned?;
what could the handling pilot's HSI course selector have been aligned to?;
what other explanation is there for the a/c slowing down with altimeters set for landing whilst heading directly for a previously used landing area other than it was going to land or closely pass that area?;
who allocated a tactical callsign and what was its meaning?;
what was the SSR code before impact?;
why wasn't the call to Scot Mil answered?;
etc, etc.
If you think these points irrelevant and not worth discussion, look at the alternatives that have occupied so much of your time:
The control jam theory: - after turning right onto a heading that was on the handling pilot's HSI (therefore an intended turn), continuing to the crash site, and then responding to an emergency manouevre, the idea of a control jam seems ridiculous;
Engine runaway causing distraction: - the engines were found (closely) matched which does not fit with an engine runaway;
Inadequate rate of climb to overfly the Mull: - Boeing's analysis had it that they had started to slow down on that final leg which would have required a reduction in power at their high cruise speed and this was suppported by the engine settings and reduced rotor RPM as found to have been at impact - at their power and speed, they were so far short of clearing the ground, let alone reaching SALT, that this consideration is nonsense - they would have to have thought that they were so far away from the landmass (miles further than they were) for this to have been their intention and the SuperTANS wasn't that bad;
Disoriented in IMC; - they were not in IMC at the critical time of their decision to turn right at the position of waypoint change according to my understanding of the weather and they would have known of their general proximity to the landmass - they would have only had problems with the visibility if they had, for whatever reason, to directly approach the landmass beyond what was needed for an enroute passing.
.
Got any other ideas?
I have always been aware of this consideration but made the point some time ago that, as the preceding post says, it is old tech now and, in my view, it would be hard to imagine anything worse happening to our service people than what happened that day, if indeed such equipment was misused on that occasion. That is why I believe we have more to gain security wise by exploring this possibility thoroughly - the implications to us all if this was the case are that serious.
.
I do take your point that the Off Secrets Act is a powerful gag but it should not deter people who believe we live in a free and democratic society from speaking up when it is needed. If we do not live in such a society, just what is it we are trying to impose by force in those other areas of conflict that you refer to?
.
Those of you who have a mental block as to how far our security services will go to achieve their ends should have a look at the revelation in that Diana inquest that MI something had plans to assassinate Milosovic (the arranged accident thing) - if they would contemplate knocking off a head of state of a country remote from the hearts and minds of the bulk of the British public, what would they do to remove an obstacle to the peace process in NI, a part of Britain which the politicians of the time (incl. the PM) openly expressed a desire that it should just go away - an open wound that has dragged on for decades and that has affected so many of us?
We owe it to the security team that was on board to explore any possibility, however unpalatable, of this being the case.
As things stand we have not even explained why they turned in towards that landing area despite the evidence for this.
A cover up to save embarrassment of a training exercise/demonstration that went wrong is not acceptable if it is blocking inquiry into the possibility of wilful interference in any such exercise.
.
In short, I believe it better serves the public interest to fully analyse this crash than keeping it under wraps for some vague and general security considerations.
.
With regard to that dig about being in Australia (someone's recent previous post) somehow avoiding responsibility re the Off Sec Act - I recently spent 3 months in the UK specifically to do research on this case - and no doubt will be returning soon for more of the same.
I worked for years in the defence industry in the UK and take security issues seriously - in this case it is not so much being irresponsible but rather having the courage of my convictions.
.
I sincerely hope that this was just a tragic accident but, for me to be convinced, the following issues need to be addressed:
why was the weather and the a/c track misrepresented at the inquiries?;
why wasn't the existence of a previously used landing area so near the crash site mentioned?;
what could the handling pilot's HSI course selector have been aligned to?;
what other explanation is there for the a/c slowing down with altimeters set for landing whilst heading directly for a previously used landing area other than it was going to land or closely pass that area?;
who allocated a tactical callsign and what was its meaning?;
what was the SSR code before impact?;
why wasn't the call to Scot Mil answered?;
etc, etc.
If you think these points irrelevant and not worth discussion, look at the alternatives that have occupied so much of your time:
The control jam theory: - after turning right onto a heading that was on the handling pilot's HSI (therefore an intended turn), continuing to the crash site, and then responding to an emergency manouevre, the idea of a control jam seems ridiculous;
Engine runaway causing distraction: - the engines were found (closely) matched which does not fit with an engine runaway;
Inadequate rate of climb to overfly the Mull: - Boeing's analysis had it that they had started to slow down on that final leg which would have required a reduction in power at their high cruise speed and this was suppported by the engine settings and reduced rotor RPM as found to have been at impact - at their power and speed, they were so far short of clearing the ground, let alone reaching SALT, that this consideration is nonsense - they would have to have thought that they were so far away from the landmass (miles further than they were) for this to have been their intention and the SuperTANS wasn't that bad;
Disoriented in IMC; - they were not in IMC at the critical time of their decision to turn right at the position of waypoint change according to my understanding of the weather and they would have known of their general proximity to the landmass - they would have only had problems with the visibility if they had, for whatever reason, to directly approach the landmass beyond what was needed for an enroute passing.
.
Got any other ideas?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally,
You posted.....
"Those of you who have a mental block as to how far our security services will go to achieve their ends should have a look at the revelation in that Diana inquest" ........................there can be no doubts now
You posted.....
"Those of you who have a mental block as to how far our security services will go to achieve their ends should have a look at the revelation in that Diana inquest" ........................there can be no doubts now
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 21st Feb 2008 at 10:35.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PK
One of the best pieces of advice given to me 30 odd years ago when I first joined was RTFQ...........or Read The Fuc@ing Question and it has worked wonders for me over the years.
All the questions you have asked are covered in the 160 plus pages of this thread hence my advice to read through it and if reiterating my point with more emphasis makes me an old fashioned ignorant schoolmaster then so be it.
One of the best pieces of advice given to me 30 odd years ago when I first joined was RTFQ...........or Read The Fuc@ing Question and it has worked wonders for me over the years.
All the questions you have asked are covered in the 160 plus pages of this thread hence my advice to read through it and if reiterating my point with more emphasis makes me an old fashioned ignorant schoolmaster then so be it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the seasoned and reasoned posters have been ignoring our rather amusing friend Walter for some time, but I just can't resist sorry!
I don't wish to add credibility to his cause by answering any of his ridiculous statements, which have already been expounded by those more eloquent and qualified than I.
However, Walter, it is really frustrating that you seem intent on dragging a powerful and informative thread down to the level of your juvenile and moronic conspiracy theories. This thread is widely read; you reduce it's integrity. Start your own somewhere else for heavens sake.
It may be of interest to you Walter, that another 'revelation' from the Princesss Diana inquest is that HRH Prince Phillip is also similar to the Frankenstein monster. Kind of tells you the level of credibility afforded to this inquest doesn't it?
I don't wish to add credibility to his cause by answering any of his ridiculous statements, which have already been expounded by those more eloquent and qualified than I.
However, Walter, it is really frustrating that you seem intent on dragging a powerful and informative thread down to the level of your juvenile and moronic conspiracy theories. This thread is widely read; you reduce it's integrity. Start your own somewhere else for heavens sake.
It may be of interest to you Walter, that another 'revelation' from the Princesss Diana inquest is that HRH Prince Phillip is also similar to the Frankenstein monster. Kind of tells you the level of credibility afforded to this inquest doesn't it?