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 8th Jun 2008, 11:04
  #3501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AC
Although it has taken 2 years as you rightly say if my recollection is correct (I did not want to plough back the last two and a half years of entries) some of this time has been taken in awaiting replies under the Freedom of Information Act from the MOD only to be told 1. Its too expensive 2. We lost the documentation 3. etc etc etc Perhaps if we did not have a part time Minister of Defence (for the first time ever?) things might move a bit quicker .
Keep it up Brian. Justice will prevail
dwhcomputers is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 15:28
  #3502 (permalink)  
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.

I just wanted to apologise for the lack of updates. At present we continue to wait for the SoS to announce his findings. I am, however, hopeful that the Cook and Tapper families won't have to wait too much longer (not forgetting, of course, the families of everyone else lost on that tragic flight).

As always, I thank you for your patience and for your support.

I promise that I will bring you any news, the instant there is anything to report.

Kind regards, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2008, 13:12
  #3503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hoping that no news is good news, Brian, 2 1/2 weeks on...
Waiting for the expiry date...
Winch-control is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2008, 10:36
  #3504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shep Turner

The Chinook affair leaves many unanswered questions and I agree with all that has been done to try and overturn the MOD's position. I was the watchkeeper on duty in Air Operations Aldergrove that day and witnesses the last "Ops Normal" call from the aircrew taken by Mick Huddard standing beside me that day, 20 minutes later we were receiving the first initial reports of what has now become one the the great unsolved military mysteries and a sore on the conciences of too many people. The MOD HAS made a mistake and is simply too arrogant to back down. These were good people whose professionalism and integrity has been tarnished for too long. Theres more to this than meets the eye.....
Shep Turner is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2008, 13:12
  #3505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am sure the families must be consumed with tension due to this protracted waiting game! I am not related but still feel irratated by this delay on an answer. The pilots were unfairly branded - let justice be done.
tiarna is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2008, 20:56
  #3506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is wrong with you all?
You profess to want to clear the pilots' names but you will not contemplate a scenario that guarantees their exoneration – why is this?
Information keeps coming in that supports the already strong case that they were involved in a thus far undisclosed exercise – how can the MOD do anything but exonerate them if it is found that it has for 14 years omitted to mention such?
All that is required is for a few of you to come forward into the open with what you know.
I can only think that your reluctance is because you have swallowed a line something like “Unfortunate accident – keep it quiet to avoid needless serious embarassment – not a deliberate act – bad for PR – serious political repercussions – security considerations for future use of important system – blah, blah”.
And you loyally follow the line.
But you didn't expect the pilots to take such a fall, did you?
Why should you keep quiet when these young men were so unfairly dealt with?
And the longer it is dragged out, the greater is going to be the shame if and when it does get exposed.
Let me tell you just how far it has unfolded to date:
(Remember that my analysis pointed to a particular type of equipment being on board?)
I am told that not only was the requisite onboard equipment fitted but the ground crew (who worked on ZD576 immediately before that final flight) were making good a botched (a common occurrence) special trials fit working on that very equipment's (anti-vibration) mounts (doesn't fit with their story at the BOI, does it Brian?);
And this equipment had been around in the RAF for trials for at least a year before the crash so a good many of you would have been familiar with it and could have saved a lot of time - years in fact.
Get your act together:
cooperate amongst yourselves using this thread constructively to get as full a verifiable picture as possible – don't be shy of communicating – ignore Orwell's sheep;
as a group demand where the sets used for those trials are now – account for them all;
demand to know who expedited the fit to ZD576;
demand an explanation as to why that significant piece of nav equipment did not get a mention in the AAIB report (or anywhere else for that matter) and where the hell is it now.
.
There is nothing to loose – if you start seriously to explore this aspect, the MOD may loose its nerve and move to clear their names so as as to take the wind out of this thread ... its objective achieved.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2008, 21:31
  #3507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Walter,

I was always suspicious of your mental stability but your latest diatribe once and for all removes any doubts I may have had

"All that is required is for a few of you to come forward into the open with what you know.
I can only think that your reluctance is because you have swallowed a line something like “Unfortunate accident – keep it quiet to avoid needless serious embarrassment – not a deliberate act – bad for PR – serious political repercussions – security considerations for future use of important system – blah, blah”.
And you loyally follow the line."

Have a look at any of the following threads, or the many more like them on PPrune,

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/335173-pissed-up-chinook-crew-cause-embarassment.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/334581-half-armed-forces-considering-quitting.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/335096-daily-mirror-today.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/335148-sir-jock-impresses-press.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/242005-nimrod-crash-afghanistan-tech-info-discussion-not-condolences.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/military-aircrew/334918-forces-afghanistan-years.html



Now consider the disdain that our senior management are currently held in, the continual downward spiral with regards to moral, manpower deficiencies, equipment levels etc etc and then revisit your feckin ludicrous suggestions above that it's due to misplaced loyalty that your ridiculous fairy tale has never been corroborated
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2008, 05:44
  #3508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
The main reason we have not gone down that line is because it it utter bo££ocks.....
jayteeto is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2008, 21:14
  #3509 (permalink)  
Green Flash
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I was fishing with a friend a few weeks ago. He was on duty at Machrihanish that day and I was on duty at the flights planned destination. We agreed that hardly a day goes past when we don't wonder what really happened. Many people have been marking time for 14 years so please SoS, make a decision. And soon.
 
Old 18th Jul 2008, 22:11
  #3510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What has happened to the three posts that were on the thread immediately following #3533?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2008, 22:34
  #3511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apparently the 3 posters all received omni directional information from an unknown source that caused them to veer away from their planned.........................or maybe common sense broke through
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2008, 23:02
  #3512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I posted previously, nothing inappropriate or anything, so yes indeed, why has my post and that of two others been removed??

Seldomfitforpurpose (re: your post above), did I post something that you had difficulty with? I mean if my post was so far removed from common sense one has to ask the question why so many of your posts still exist

Last edited by tiarna; 19th Jul 2008 at 23:58.
tiarna is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2008, 23:34
  #3513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The disappearance of your message has nowt to do with me, I am just a mere member in here......................
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2008, 23:53
  #3514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seldomfitforpurpose it seems that I did have at least that much common sense to figure that out for myself. I was not suggesting or hinting in anyway that you had anything to do with my missing post and my appologies if my post does not make that clear.
tiarna is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 07:11
  #3515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Now back in England
Age: 84
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
classjazz

Since retirement I only occasionally dip in to this thread and what I have to say will not progress the arguments any further but having had one of my sons fly the Chinook as a pilot, I maintain some interest.
Not too long after the accident, I was down at Farnborough and I was looking at the wreckage laid out in the hangar there.
I was talking with an inspector - whose name I cannot remember now - and we discussed the various theories that were being bandied around as to the cause of the accident.
I remember him telling me that they had examined the "chips" from the nav equipment (they were more proficient at that than Boeing apparently) and all he would say was "the chips told us that the aircraft was where it said it was" .
Read into that what you like.
I had left the service by then and was working in commercial aviation and to this day I do not regret leaving. One can escape from the MOD but one cannot escape from the politics.
Sorry if this contribution is a little off the normal mark.
classjazz is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 08:27
  #3516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't understand the heavy handed policing going on in this thread. I posted a transcript, a transcript which is a matter of public record from a public inquest and it has been removed.

Why?

Why is this thread being censored?

My post was in reply to Walter Kennedy's which referred to the Special Trials Fit on the Chinook. Have we upset someone regarding Special Trials Fit and the obvious breach in airworthiness regulations?
nigegilb is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 16:57
  #3517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Nigel, you led the successful campaign to battle harden the Hercules fleet and now ESF is fitted after a 40 years old shortfall in airworthiness in that respect. You have contributed greatly to the Nimrod thread where an admission of an even more serious shortfall in airworthiness has been made. Now you have posted here and mentioned the "a" word! Eventually the Chinook Mk2 will prove to be the final part of this ghastly menage a trois. As long as we knock ourselves out pleading for the Wratten and Day verdict to be scrapped we are tolerated, mainly ignored (as now), but tolerated. As soon as the fitness, or otherwise, of ZD576 for what was to be its final flight is alluded to - posts disappear into a Black Hole. I find this very unsettling and a little alarming. "Waiting for Des" is par for the course. Censoring you of all people is a disturbing and distinctly sinister twist to the thread. What's going on, Pop?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 17:30
  #3518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK Chug, in the absence of an explanation, let's try again shall we? This transcript from a trials specialist, was given in evidence at the recent Nimrod public inquest with no "in camera" sessions, and as such, can be regarded as a public document. I have also been shown evidence which indicates that ZD576 was carrying STF equipment on that fateful day and I think it important to establish that breaches of airworthiness regs continued from that day to this day specifically regarding Special Trials Fit procedures.

Chug, bearing in mind the Nimrod Navigator's evidence when he criticised Special Trials Fits (and by extension the whole Service Modification system) keep an eye on what happens here because the evidence of widespread deceit and airworthiness shortcutting will bite MoD sooner or later, as you say, all these cases are linked.

MALE SPEAKER: And (several inaudible words) if there was any heat detail it is alive in your mind. You were asked a series of questions (several inaudible words) in response. The questions put to you, you were asked this, is there anything else you wish to discuss with us, and your response was, “My thinking is STFs of this aircraft”. Do I understand STF to be Standard Trials(?) Fit?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Special Trials Fit.

MALE SPEAKER: So it was a special trial.

THE CORONER: Did you have any problems with Special Trials Fit in the equipment?

SQN LDR ATKINS: To put it in context, I am a qualified trials officers at the General Duties Air Assistance Course in 1992 and then spent three years from 1992 to 1995 at Boscombe Down as a trials officer doing special trials fix on the Comet aircraft, the laboratory aircraft. So I did have a bit of knowledge of the system and how it should be used and I just wanted to sort of point out as part of this that I thought you were abusing it slightly.

THE CORONER: And why would you it was being abused?

SQN LDR ATKINS: From what I remember of my training, the definition of a special trials fit is a fit that has gone onto the aircraft for the duration of the trial which, in exception circumstances, could be taken into operational use.

THE CORONER: So, your criticism here is that the special trials fits just stay?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Exactly. I mean, yes, my interpretation would be you had an urgent operation requirement, special trials fit onto an aircraft, take it to theatre, get the job done, bring it back, take the equipment off. Whereas, we were doing go to theatre, take it back, onto a different aircraft, that goes out. So, yes, there were ... and there are reasons behind that why I think it is not quite the way to play business.

THE CORONER: And why do you think it is not quite the way.

SQN LDR ATKINS: Okay, one of the reasons I have a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, so to my mind moving cable harnesses regularly is not good practice.

THE CORONER: Why?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Just potential damage.

THE CORONER: To the harnesses?

SQN LDR ATKINS: To the actual cable harnesses when they are moved from one aircraft to stored, moved back to another aircraft.

THE CORONER: So potential damage to the cabling and constant shorting?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Potentially.

THE CORONER: With a fire?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Potentially.

THE CORONER: Potentially, yes.

MALE SPEAKER: Right, you say specifically, and this was the reason I wished to ask you this question, “we will (inaudible) in writing but before the accident there were three circuit breakers we were meant to pull before taking it and we didn’t”. What did you mean by that?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Okay, what had happened was when we first arrived in theatre, the problem is you do not have ready access to this equipment in the UK. So you often arrive out in theatre to an aircraft that has got, in this case I believe it was four or five separate special trials fits fitted to it, and that is the first time you have really got, to get to grips with it again. Somebody at Kinross had tried to be helpful when they produced like a local briefing package where they had in the back of the release to service document for each special trials fit they made, sort of make a waiver of, if you are going to do air to air refuelling you need to pull the circuit breaker or not use this particular item.

THE CORONER: Why do you think that was? Why did they say pull those circuit breakers?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Because of the way it is being fitted to the aircraft, it is another safety break, if you like, just in case. Because they had not had the opportunity to fully embody the equipment onto the aircraft and perhaps test it as thoroughly as it should have been.

THE CORONER: So, (inaudible) if the system is switched off during air to air refuel then chances of any problems associated with electrical shorting or failure in that period are removed?

SQN LDR ATKINS: They should be zero.

THE CORONER: Yes.

MALE SPEAKER: What was it about air to air refuelling in particular that meant that the special trials fit had to be switched off during that process?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Well, as if have just explained, it was because of ... when you have not properly embodied something onto the aeroplane, the big issue for us as the operating crew is that the air to air refuelling checks when you have not embodied it will not reflect what you need to do. Until a piece of equipment is serviced embodiment modification that will include changing all the paperwork that goes with it. So as part of your air to air refuelling checks you would have then been told pull this circuit breaker, pull that circuit breaker, do not use that. What had happened was that was not in the formal checklist so crews had ... as I say, somebody had tried to develop a local checklist that had an error in it and as a result of the accident we had a quick look back to make sure we were doing things properly, and that is when we discovered that error.

THE CORONER: Do you think that error might have had anything to do with what happened to this aircraft?

SQN LDR ATKINS: In reality I do not, but at the time I made this statement obviously, you know, it was fresh after the event and --

THE CORONER: So, fresh out of the event, what made the connection in your mind?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Purely because with my background I was aware of how we were using special trails fits and I wondered if the way we had used them might have been significant.

THE CORONER: So it was just in your mind that there might have been some electrical failure that might have been responsible for the ignition of fuel?

SQN LDR ATKINS: Possibly that. The other aspect was were trying to sort of, you know, put ourselves into that crew’s position in terms of the time line as it was described to us. And one of the things post having done your air to air refuelling is obviously putting circuit breakers back in to get this equipment working again, and potentially that might have been significant.

THE CORONER: Potentially, yes, thank you.

Last edited by nigegilb; 20th Jul 2008 at 17:51.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 20:55
  #3519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Well, this is cosy Nigel, just thee and me it would seem! Such weighty moral issues, yet so little said by so few! So let's dot some i's and t's (well OK, cross them). Only mods can remove others' posts I believe, so how about spelling out the pros and cons, mods? Oh and can we take as read the whole Danny's train set spiel?
The only reason that occurs to me as to what might have motivated this is to prevent the rocking of the MOD boat. If the reward for non-rocking is that Jonathon Tapper's and Rick Cook's names might be cleared as against never, I would only comment that no spoon is long enough to sup with the MOD! Both the Nimrod and Hercules threads were instanced by brave NoK determined that no other families should go through such pain as they have had to endure following possibly avoidable accidents. They faced patronising and even hostile comments on this very forum, but were determined to discover what had happened and how best to avoid it in the future. In that regard they showed greater adherence to the tenets of Flight Safety than many of the professionals that post here. I realise that what they did not have to do was to clear the names of their loved ones, as with this tragedy. If the price of doing so is to prevent wrong doing from being exposed and thus being repeated again, is it not too high to pay? For that would be blackmail, an ugly word for an ugly deed. The greater good here surely would be to expose the way that airworthiness has been consistently compromised by the very authority charged with its enforcement, ie the MOD, as has been testified to in the Hercules and Nimrod threads. Appeasement never works. Censorship never works. The truth will out. Better if all here are at least agreed upon that.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2008, 21:24
  #3520 (permalink)  
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
Not ignoring you chaps. Been working 17hr + days at the moment, so will catch up once I've had a bit of sleep.

Hope that's OK.

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.