Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPP we have exchanged PMs this morning. I don't wish to distract this very important thread, nor do I wish to detract from the massive amount of work done to clear the names of the two pilots, one of whom was known to me.
However, there is clear evidence that five fatal crashes are linked by a failure of the MoD to enforce its own airworthiness regulations. This Chinook was clearly not airworthy on that fateful day. A fact sometimes lost in this enormous thread. By stating this fact clearly, at this critical juncture, it may even help provide the tipping point for clearing the pilots once and for all.
MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit.
However, there is clear evidence that five fatal crashes are linked by a failure of the MoD to enforce its own airworthiness regulations. This Chinook was clearly not airworthy on that fateful day. A fact sometimes lost in this enormous thread. By stating this fact clearly, at this critical juncture, it may even help provide the tipping point for clearing the pilots once and for all.
MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit.
PPRuNe Pop, is it not for the OP to state whether Nigel's post was off topic? It was not abusive, it followed up on another post from Walter. He has as we all know not gone directly for the Wratten/Day verdict, but for a scenario which he believes conforms to the known facts, which include the ARS-6 trial fit. He has been ridiculed, admonished and patronized but has never been "moded" AFAIK. nigegilb, with a track record of responsible campaigning and posting, follows on with a transcript that underlies that last point is immediately wiped! You keep a famously loose hand on our tiller Pop, and for that we are all very grateful. I fear though that here your hand might have slipped temporarily. I respectfully ask that we resume sailing without a "man overboard".
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airworthiness of ZD 576
For reasons which Walter knows I will not join in the debate as to whether a STF for the ARS-6 was installed in ZD 576 on that fateful day - except to say that if it could be proved that it was then regardless of whether any "unofficial" trial was also taking place it would "blow a major hole" in the BOI's evidence and hence the findings. However, I believe that Nigel should be supported in his comment on the airworthiness failures - failures that have come back to "haunt" MOD in so many ways since then. This is a long thread and people will have forgotten, so it may be worth reminding them that the document below was personally handed to the then SofS by Lord Chalfont in, as I recall, late 2003 - it has never generated, to my knowledge, any response from MOD. Since that paper was written we have, of course, seen further information which confirms that the Chinook Mk2 fleet in general, and ZD 576 in particular, were operating against the advice of the RAF's own flight clearance authority - perhaps by necessity in terms of real operations, but certainly not a wise decision, even without the benefit of hindsight, in terms of a high profile passenger sortie. Jonathan Tapper undoubtedly recognised this when he asked to keep a Mk1 in theatre for this sortie - but, as was confirmed in the BOI evidence, his request was refused.
Airworthiness Summary
In making its early decision to “eliminate as possible causes: major technical malfunction or structural failure of the aircraft prior to impact” and to focus “on the crew’s handling and operation of the aircraft” the Board, including the Review process not only ignored taking potentially significant evidence but also failed to follow up evidence showing potential airworthiness, engineering and maintenance issues that was placed before it. As such, either by direction or of its own volition, the Board behaved in a partial and inconsistent manner and their findings were heavily biased in favour of a verdict that ensured that the RAF themselves were not questioned on their decisions and shortfalls in their processes.
Even with these limitations on their investigations the Board did not find any human failings in either pilot with their only criticism being an error of judgement by Flt Lt Tapper in terms of the attempted climb over the Mull (but the Board never explains why, with the waypoint changed, they assumed that they planned to overfly the Mull at all). The change in verdict to Gross Negligence by the Senior Reviewing Officers, could not have been justified if the available evidence had been correctly analysed and followed up. Such actions would have shown that the airworthiness status of the Chinook HC2 fleet at that time, potentially coupled with a major technical defect on ZD 576 itself, was a plausible alternative cause for the accident.
JSP 318 (Regulation of Ministry of Defence Aircraft) defines “Airworthiness” as “the ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, groundcrew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which the airborne systems are flow
The Board’s Terms of reference do not specifically task the Board to look at whether the aircraft was “airworthy” in terms of MOD’s own definition of airworthiness, despite the fact that the “problems” of the Chinook HC2 fleet at that time were well known to supervisors and commanders. However the Board is specifically tasked to assess the equivalent “Human Failings”.
The Board, including the Reviewing Officers, does not mention “airworthiness” at any point, and the Board, including the Review process, does not consider the central question of whether, either as a result of the MLU design, Release to Service process and/or the defect history of the aircraft, the “airworthiness chain” was still intact for ZD 576. There is clear, and unused, evidence that it was not, and that there is at least one more plausible explanation for the accident. It is also clear that the RAF’s decision to operate the HC2 at all, against the recommendations of A&AEE, and with the introduction to service problems it had at the time, as well as the choice of the HC2, and ZD 576 in particular, for a high profile but non-operational, passenger flight should be called into question.
The bottom line is that even though we will never know whether, like the DC10 cargo hold door, this was the airworthiness accident waiting to happen, the Chinook HC2 was, in airworthiness terms, totally unfit for purpose as far as its use for this sortie was concerned. This should have been known to all levels of RAF management, as it clearly was to the crew, and as well as having major faults in the procurement processes of this project MOD failed in its duty of care on this particular sortie, and then tried to cover this up by putting blame on the pilots.
JB
Airworthiness Summary
In making its early decision to “eliminate as possible causes: major technical malfunction or structural failure of the aircraft prior to impact” and to focus “on the crew’s handling and operation of the aircraft” the Board, including the Review process not only ignored taking potentially significant evidence but also failed to follow up evidence showing potential airworthiness, engineering and maintenance issues that was placed before it. As such, either by direction or of its own volition, the Board behaved in a partial and inconsistent manner and their findings were heavily biased in favour of a verdict that ensured that the RAF themselves were not questioned on their decisions and shortfalls in their processes.
Even with these limitations on their investigations the Board did not find any human failings in either pilot with their only criticism being an error of judgement by Flt Lt Tapper in terms of the attempted climb over the Mull (but the Board never explains why, with the waypoint changed, they assumed that they planned to overfly the Mull at all). The change in verdict to Gross Negligence by the Senior Reviewing Officers, could not have been justified if the available evidence had been correctly analysed and followed up. Such actions would have shown that the airworthiness status of the Chinook HC2 fleet at that time, potentially coupled with a major technical defect on ZD 576 itself, was a plausible alternative cause for the accident.
JSP 318 (Regulation of Ministry of Defence Aircraft) defines “Airworthiness” as “the ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, groundcrew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which the airborne systems are flow
The Board’s Terms of reference do not specifically task the Board to look at whether the aircraft was “airworthy” in terms of MOD’s own definition of airworthiness, despite the fact that the “problems” of the Chinook HC2 fleet at that time were well known to supervisors and commanders. However the Board is specifically tasked to assess the equivalent “Human Failings”.
The Board, including the Reviewing Officers, does not mention “airworthiness” at any point, and the Board, including the Review process, does not consider the central question of whether, either as a result of the MLU design, Release to Service process and/or the defect history of the aircraft, the “airworthiness chain” was still intact for ZD 576. There is clear, and unused, evidence that it was not, and that there is at least one more plausible explanation for the accident. It is also clear that the RAF’s decision to operate the HC2 at all, against the recommendations of A&AEE, and with the introduction to service problems it had at the time, as well as the choice of the HC2, and ZD 576 in particular, for a high profile but non-operational, passenger flight should be called into question.
The bottom line is that even though we will never know whether, like the DC10 cargo hold door, this was the airworthiness accident waiting to happen, the Chinook HC2 was, in airworthiness terms, totally unfit for purpose as far as its use for this sortie was concerned. This should have been known to all levels of RAF management, as it clearly was to the crew, and as well as having major faults in the procurement processes of this project MOD failed in its duty of care on this particular sortie, and then tried to cover this up by putting blame on the pilots.
JB
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about maybe Nige and Walter start another thread, Walter has been asked to do this on many occasions in the past. If they both believe in the Trials Fit theory and have the moral courage to challenge folk with their evidence then they can explore that to their hearts content on another thread 
My take on this thread is that is has been looking to right a legal wrong doing and at this delicate juncture is it right that the thread is almost certainly going to get hijacked in this manner
My take on this thread is that is has been looking to right a legal wrong doing and at this delicate juncture is it right that the thread is almost certainly going to get hijacked in this manner
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cause of this crash is a mystery and unless someone is cliaming that aliens are responsible then it may only then be reasonable to request they go elsewhere. But when people simply suggest a possiblity based on a previously unexplored scenerio are shouted down --well one must question who it serves by doing so? I think it would be a very sad developement if Chugalug2, nigegilb or Walter leave this thread for a more obscure one. The debat is all the more healthier for their contributions. If there was an STF involved then such probing may inadvertantly force the injustice to be rectified now, least the MoD case be further unraveled. If the STF contributed to the crash then the MoD have an out now and would be wise to take it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiarna
Your post has a very significant point:
<<... If there was an STF involved then such probing may inadvertantly force the injustice to be rectified now, least (sic, lest?) the MoD case be further unraveled. If the STF contributed to the crash then the MoD have an out now and would be wise to take it.>>
.
Indeed perhaps they should go into “damage control” mode – this is an opportune time for them to minimise their problems and make most people happy – including me.
.
If they went beyond acknowledging the STF and took the opportunity to disclose an exercise using it giving a full explanation of its planned execution (pls ignore the double entendre!) such that a reasonable man may be satisfied that there was no opportunity for foul play then the pilots get cleared, the MOD has a direction to follow (big review to improve airworthiness, safety issues in ad hoc exercises, etc) and conspiracy theories stop – we all get closure and move on.
Your post has a very significant point:
<<... If there was an STF involved then such probing may inadvertantly force the injustice to be rectified now, least (sic, lest?) the MoD case be further unraveled. If the STF contributed to the crash then the MoD have an out now and would be wise to take it.>>
.
Indeed perhaps they should go into “damage control” mode – this is an opportune time for them to minimise their problems and make most people happy – including me.
.
If they went beyond acknowledging the STF and took the opportunity to disclose an exercise using it giving a full explanation of its planned execution (pls ignore the double entendre!) such that a reasonable man may be satisfied that there was no opportunity for foul play then the pilots get cleared, the MOD has a direction to follow (big review to improve airworthiness, safety issues in ad hoc exercises, etc) and conspiracy theories stop – we all get closure and move on.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit.
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.
Are we still on topic? Yes, we are.
AA
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2 andnigegilb
You queried the lack of response to your posts, but this will be due to the fact that even regular contributors to this long-running debate are waiting for Des Browne's response to the document that we have provided for his perusal and have not been visiting this site. The document remains priviliged for the moment but, rest assured, it includes an examination of airworthiness shortfalls.
You queried the lack of response to your posts, but this will be due to the fact that even regular contributors to this long-running debate are waiting for Des Browne's response to the document that we have provided for his perusal and have not been visiting this site. The document remains priviliged for the moment but, rest assured, it includes an examination of airworthiness shortfalls.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt Des Browne will be in post come September, hope you are bringing whatever pressure you can to bear. Have to say I was impressed by JB's post, it would seem the airworthiness aspect has been taken care of to a degree.
Perhaps it is best to do everything possible to hurry up the process, before SoS Def is replaced.
Perhaps it is best to do everything possible to hurry up the process, before SoS Def is replaced.
meadowbank, thank you for your kindness in replying to Nigel and myself. I can only endorse his comments. The people who have campaigned for this injustice to be righted are principled and fair minded. I wish them well.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2 and nigegilb
Unfortunately, Mr Browne promised a response prior to the MPs' summer recess, which has now started.....erm....without said response. On the other hand, we've all seen Mr B (actually both Mr Bs, come to think of it!) having a lot else to think about recently, so the lack of response is not totally surprising.
The recess lasts until 6 October but, given the salary (plus allowances!) paid to Cabinet Ministers by we tax-payers, I imagine that Mr Browne will now have time on his hands to settle down with a good book (the missive he was sent by this group) and come up with his (correct?!) response way before then. Anyone for a breath-holding contest?
Unfortunately, Mr Browne promised a response prior to the MPs' summer recess, which has now started.....erm....without said response. On the other hand, we've all seen Mr B (actually both Mr Bs, come to think of it!) having a lot else to think about recently, so the lack of response is not totally surprising.
The recess lasts until 6 October but, given the salary (plus allowances!) paid to Cabinet Ministers by we tax-payers, I imagine that Mr Browne will now have time on his hands to settle down with a good book (the missive he was sent by this group) and come up with his (correct?!) response way before then. Anyone for a breath-holding contest?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tiarna
For once in my life I agree with SFFP.
If you read this thread from its inception (it is obvious that you have not -nor have you read the BOI itself) you will note that ALL the contributors who were actually there that fateful day are adament that the equipment you are talking about was NOT fitted to ZD 576 on 2 June 1994. Having done that then you may consider reading the AAIB report as well as the BOI in its entirety.
Once you have completed reading those documents you may be in a position to comment usefully to the discussion.
For once in my life I agree with SFFP.
If you read this thread from its inception (it is obvious that you have not -nor have you read the BOI itself) you will note that ALL the contributors who were actually there that fateful day are adament that the equipment you are talking about was NOT fitted to ZD 576 on 2 June 1994. Having done that then you may consider reading the AAIB report as well as the BOI in its entirety.
Once you have completed reading those documents you may be in a position to comment usefully to the discussion.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
Ops! I have read them. I also have previous experience of other cases wherein, personnel or equipment, are for various reasons not disclosed in legal reports or to the courts.
Like you I would like the truth to come out --the unfortunate thing about that is we will never know it. What I am convinced about in this case is that these men should have their good names restored. I believe that the crash was not the fault of the pilots. If they were at fault then there is insufficient evidence to establish a case against them. If they had survived they would have cleared their own names a very long time ago as being innocent or simply no case to answer. Their families have suffered a double tragedy, in that they lost loved members of their family and then have endured their good names being tarnished by those they served.
Ops! I have read them. I also have previous experience of other cases wherein, personnel or equipment, are for various reasons not disclosed in legal reports or to the courts.
Like you I would like the truth to come out --the unfortunate thing about that is we will never know it. What I am convinced about in this case is that these men should have their good names restored. I believe that the crash was not the fault of the pilots. If they were at fault then there is insufficient evidence to establish a case against them. If they had survived they would have cleared their own names a very long time ago as being innocent or simply no case to answer. Their families have suffered a double tragedy, in that they lost loved members of their family and then have endured their good names being tarnished by those they served.
Last edited by tiarna; 28th Jul 2008 at 21:28.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
<<ALL the contributors who were actually there that fateful day are adament that the equipment you are talking about was NOT fitted to ZD 576 on 2 June 1994>>
Kettle calling the pan black re spelling aside
they may have been adamant but how? - how obvious would it have been unless it was pointed out/mentioned?
And there are other ways of communicating other than via the open forum.
tiarna
More like a triple tragedy - that those really responsible have got off without penalty.
And don't forget what we all lost - a most dedicated and competent anti-terrorist team, the like of which we shall never see assembled again without fundamental political change.
<<ALL the contributors who were actually there that fateful day are adament that the equipment you are talking about was NOT fitted to ZD 576 on 2 June 1994>>
Kettle calling the pan black re spelling aside
they may have been adamant but how? - how obvious would it have been unless it was pointed out/mentioned?And there are other ways of communicating other than via the open forum.
tiarna
More like a triple tragedy - that those really responsible have got off without penalty.
And don't forget what we all lost - a most dedicated and competent anti-terrorist team, the like of which we shall never see assembled again without fundamental political change.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tiarna
If you have read them then I congratulate you. The BOI with its annexes was (IIRC) some 15 inches thick and you would, of course, have required copies of the relevant parts of RAF Aldergrove and RAF Odiham Flying Order Books, HQ1 Gp ASO's, HQSTC ASI's and JSP 318 to cross reference the Orders and Instructions pertaining to the Flight.
Perhaps you would care to comment as to what effect the disparate sub scale settings on the Pilots altimeters - leading to a large discrepancy in height readouts - would have had on their actions in the final few seconds of the flight as they attempted a low level abort. Indeed you may wish to comment as to why there was such a disparity, how it was that the Pilots had failed to pick up that disparity in their routine instrument cross checks and why they had got the aircraft and its passengers into a situation that required such action as an emergency low level abort whilst flying at high speed directly towards cloud enshrouded high ground.
If you have read them then I congratulate you. The BOI with its annexes was (IIRC) some 15 inches thick and you would, of course, have required copies of the relevant parts of RAF Aldergrove and RAF Odiham Flying Order Books, HQ1 Gp ASO's, HQSTC ASI's and JSP 318 to cross reference the Orders and Instructions pertaining to the Flight.
Perhaps you would care to comment as to what effect the disparate sub scale settings on the Pilots altimeters - leading to a large discrepancy in height readouts - would have had on their actions in the final few seconds of the flight as they attempted a low level abort. Indeed you may wish to comment as to why there was such a disparity, how it was that the Pilots had failed to pick up that disparity in their routine instrument cross checks and why they had got the aircraft and its passengers into a situation that required such action as an emergency low level abort whilst flying at high speed directly towards cloud enshrouded high ground.
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
Could someone just confirm a fact for me please, saves me going through hours of posts. What were the different subscale settings? I know the radalts had different settings that the enquiry questioned. Everyone else knew that the settings were similar to threat band settings used by crews in the province. If these are the ones you mean, the rad alts would read EXACTLY the same, one alarming as you enter the threat band, the second when you descended below the band. I quite often operated around the world with different settings.