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
davaar lad,
Your post #3764 2nd December.
"The point is, how do you, they, anyone know if this was CFIT and certainly not a straightforward VMC/IMC accident, unless you were there, then: how would you?"
Could you please explain what you perceive to be the difference between CFIT and a "straightforward VMC/IMC accident"?
Your post #3764 2nd December.
"The point is, how do you, they, anyone know if this was CFIT and certainly not a straightforward VMC/IMC accident, unless you were there, then: how would you?"
Could you please explain what you perceive to be the difference between CFIT and a "straightforward VMC/IMC accident"?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and presumably after all this time and all of the heartache that will be the final position. I think it's wrong because as their is no conclusive proof either way then the equivalent of a coroner's open verdict should be allowed.
It's a sad indictment of the system that, without that proof, people should be condemned as grossly negligent in all eternity.
It's a sad indictment of the system that, without that proof, people should be condemned as grossly negligent in all eternity.
nnt:
Why? The MOD is the sole institution of many which have pronounced on this scandal that maintains its own hard line position. Frankly I would have been amazed if they had come up with anything different. Delighted but amazed! The idea now is that we all shuffle off dejected, demoralized and defeated. Well this BOF ain't for shuffling off until the slur on these pilots is removed and honour restored to their Service. Lead on Brian, we're right behind you!
Let Right Be Done
..and presumably after all this time and all of the heartache that will be the final position.
Let Right Be Done
Last edited by Chugalug2; 8th Dec 2008 at 21:57.
BBC Radio 4 News has just announced that the two pilots involved in this incident
are unlikely to be cleared, as no new evidence has come to light!
are unlikely to be cleared, as no new evidence has come to light!
Last edited by OmegaV6; 8th Dec 2008 at 22:55. Reason: edited for smelling pistakes
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB
I will always be appreciative of the help and expert input you have given to me and this forum – and I hold you with great respect as I am certain do most parties interested in this event.
This is why I was dissapointed when you, whose opinion would be given more than average weighting by any reader, so strongly dismissed the idea of a “low level Navex” - it is quite wrong to dismiss such and in consequence many related aspects.
I recall one comment in one of the inquiries when an RAF witness referred to this particular flight as a training flight (can't locate it just now) – when someone seized upon this and asked further, he back-pedalled by saying that all such SF sorties could have a training element (or words to that effect).
Here is another reference to training that I think sums it up:
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHINOOK ZD 576 TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2001 SQUADRON LEADER ROBERT BURKE by Lord Tombs 753. The last few seconds. A. .... Even on a transit trip you try and get the maximum training value out of it and that is the way we operate, that is our protection against being shot down or detection.
Bearing in mind that there was no outgoing brief and that the actual maps used by the crew were not found (in the wreckage) surely you cannot dismiss the possibility of their including an extra activity that could have been accomplished with minimal diversion from their route when passing an ideal location (so often used by such crews for training and where Flt Lt Tapper had landed before) – they had after all got through the Antrim hills at low level – I'm sure the passengers would have found the flight more interesting and not objected.
The latest news is that the pilots are not going to be cleared – there is enough circumstantial evidence for you collectively to put your efforts into consideration of an extra activity – perhaps grounds for a new inquiry.
Remember that the finding of gross negligence was based upon their supposed incorrect rate of climb when intending to overfly the Mull? If you can get your experts together and they form a concensus view that the most reasonable conclusion was, say, that they were intending to land/pass closely to a point on the Mull – then the original finding was baseless.
As I posted to Brian Dixon recently – what have you got to lose?
I will always be appreciative of the help and expert input you have given to me and this forum – and I hold you with great respect as I am certain do most parties interested in this event.
This is why I was dissapointed when you, whose opinion would be given more than average weighting by any reader, so strongly dismissed the idea of a “low level Navex” - it is quite wrong to dismiss such and in consequence many related aspects.
I recall one comment in one of the inquiries when an RAF witness referred to this particular flight as a training flight (can't locate it just now) – when someone seized upon this and asked further, he back-pedalled by saying that all such SF sorties could have a training element (or words to that effect).
Here is another reference to training that I think sums it up:
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHINOOK ZD 576 TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2001 SQUADRON LEADER ROBERT BURKE by Lord Tombs 753. The last few seconds. A. .... Even on a transit trip you try and get the maximum training value out of it and that is the way we operate, that is our protection against being shot down or detection.
Bearing in mind that there was no outgoing brief and that the actual maps used by the crew were not found (in the wreckage) surely you cannot dismiss the possibility of their including an extra activity that could have been accomplished with minimal diversion from their route when passing an ideal location (so often used by such crews for training and where Flt Lt Tapper had landed before) – they had after all got through the Antrim hills at low level – I'm sure the passengers would have found the flight more interesting and not objected.
The latest news is that the pilots are not going to be cleared – there is enough circumstantial evidence for you collectively to put your efforts into consideration of an extra activity – perhaps grounds for a new inquiry.
Remember that the finding of gross negligence was based upon their supposed incorrect rate of climb when intending to overfly the Mull? If you can get your experts together and they form a concensus view that the most reasonable conclusion was, say, that they were intending to land/pass closely to a point on the Mull – then the original finding was baseless.
As I posted to Brian Dixon recently – what have you got to lose?
Defence Secretary John Hutton has decided that no new evidence has been uncovered after a review of the case.
That might be the view of the nuLabor mis-government. However, I have a letter signed by David Cameron (10 July 2006) safely stored away - in it he states:
Dear (BEagle),
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely,
David Cameron
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely,
David Cameron
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was saddened to hear that the crew of this flight are not to be "cleared" over this accident..
Walter Kennedy, cracking point raised which i dont recall seeing anywhere else...
"no maps found in wreckage"
1. Burnt in the wreckage
2. Blown away due to the prevailing wind at the time of impact
3. Secreted away by 1st on scene investigators
4. Cover up by this government, brought on by the fact they, the government authorised the purchase of the Chinook upgrade and because of it, this has bitten them in the butt..!!
I remember seeing the Channel 4 (?) documentary on this with John Nichol, interesting point raised then, was the transponder code settings..
IIRC it was partially set to 7700... not caused by the impact apparently..
House of Lords - Chinook ZD 576 - Minutes of Evidence
as a footnote...
during my time in FI i flew numerous times with Chinook crews and was never in any way concerned by their skill in flying the a/c...
In fact one pilot Lima 4 Charlie, proved his worth during a flight where low cloud came in...!!
He followed a fuel line up over the hill at a very slow speed and completed the task as planned...
Although flying as support crew in the back, all concerned were asked for input,
options:
1. were to land and wait out
2. landing raised the problem of unidentified minefields (this was 1983)
3. try to climb out above the cloud (icing problem ?)
Just wonder how much head banging will continue before these guys are allowed to RIP...!!
Walter Kennedy, cracking point raised which i dont recall seeing anywhere else...
"no maps found in wreckage"
1. Burnt in the wreckage
2. Blown away due to the prevailing wind at the time of impact
3. Secreted away by 1st on scene investigators
4. Cover up by this government, brought on by the fact they, the government authorised the purchase of the Chinook upgrade and because of it, this has bitten them in the butt..!!
I remember seeing the Channel 4 (?) documentary on this with John Nichol, interesting point raised then, was the transponder code settings..
IIRC it was partially set to 7700... not caused by the impact apparently..
House of Lords - Chinook ZD 576 - Minutes of Evidence
as a footnote...
during my time in FI i flew numerous times with Chinook crews and was never in any way concerned by their skill in flying the a/c...
In fact one pilot Lima 4 Charlie, proved his worth during a flight where low cloud came in...!!
He followed a fuel line up over the hill at a very slow speed and completed the task as planned...
Although flying as support crew in the back, all concerned were asked for input,
options:
1. were to land and wait out
2. landing raised the problem of unidentified minefields (this was 1983)
3. try to climb out above the cloud (icing problem ?)
Just wonder how much head banging will continue before these guys are allowed to RIP...!!
Just wonder how much head banging will continue before these guys are allowed to RIP...!!
And, as Brian frequently reminds us all:
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Have always felt that this crash was a well planned exercise in removing people who could have opposed the peace process in NI.
Reasons why
1.) Standard Operating Procedure within military and civilians leadership is you never put all the eggs in 1 basket, a President and VP never travel together, a Senior General and his deputy never in the same Helicopter etc etc. Think this is drilled into senior military people throughout their life and the people on board the copter would have known it more than anybody that a single hit would do a lot of damage. Why put everybody in 1 copter when a jet can easily be called up. Bear in mind Pilots were on duty for 6 hrs before crash waiting to takeoff.
2.) Those who died lived in paranoia, everwhere they went everything they did outside of a secure base was always done mindful there could be someone with a gun / bomb planted close by. They were the establisment and they ensured they looked after themselves and controlled what was happening. Living like that and being aware of the risk of everybody being on 1 aircraft would mean that someone senior was requiring them in 1 place. These people would err on side of caution always as thats how they lived.
3.) The alledged conference they were supposed to attend never seems to have happened so finding out whether it was ever going to occur, its subject matter, attendees etc would show if it was real or a made up one designed to lull people into a false sense of security. It had to be BIG as these people don't do small events.
4.) The roadblocks to a peace agreement in NI were not either side but the vested intersts that needed the war to continue, the Raison D'etre of existence and their power came from a war. Any settlement of that would make them and their power redundant.
5.) In 1912 elements in the British Army had an internal mutiny over home rule in Ireland and supported Carson and the Unionists. In the 1970's during the Ulster Workers Council strikes the military effectively stood by while anarchy reigned. This was coordinated and run by a select group of individuals who believed themselves untouchable and loyal to themselves and NOT the UK Government. The UK establishment knows history and together with the US would have known what the risks were and who the people who could keep the war going were. Eliminating a risk in an accident is effective and there is no backlash unlike Bloody Sunday in 1920 as no need to look for the perpatrators.
6.) Setting the scene for "an accident" takes some planning but hell even Tom Clancy did this in one of his books by getting a problem logged days earlier or to build up over months to ensure there is enough"Evidence" to stop crash investigators looking further than it being an accident. In relation to this Chinook crash it seems to be all there.
7.) The weather on the Mull was awful on that day with lots of mist, low visibility etc, perfect flying blind weather, where pilots required to use mapping software and rely on it. The Pilots were special forces trained pilots who knew how to use the software and rely on it. Changing the settings so instead of being at 250 feet you are at 150 feet is easily done when you have all the source codes and is pretty hard to prove when the same people who changed it are investigating it. Keeping them on station for 6 hrs before the flight was also part of the ruse as the copter hit the cliffs at full power so blame the pilots.
A government will kill its citizens when its in its interests to do so.
I have always believed that the people who died on the Chinook were killed maybe not by the UK Govt but by someone who was doing a "Black Op" with the full support of the UK Govt.
Lots of loose ends tied up and the barriers to peace have not all disappeared but just being reduced.
Course its only a stage on the path but eliminating blockers also means that other blockers are aware as a clear message has been sent.
Did the elimination help the GFA ?
Most definitely as the opposition was political in origin with no war campaign being carried out by vested interests.
Reasons why
1.) Standard Operating Procedure within military and civilians leadership is you never put all the eggs in 1 basket, a President and VP never travel together, a Senior General and his deputy never in the same Helicopter etc etc. Think this is drilled into senior military people throughout their life and the people on board the copter would have known it more than anybody that a single hit would do a lot of damage. Why put everybody in 1 copter when a jet can easily be called up. Bear in mind Pilots were on duty for 6 hrs before crash waiting to takeoff.
2.) Those who died lived in paranoia, everwhere they went everything they did outside of a secure base was always done mindful there could be someone with a gun / bomb planted close by. They were the establisment and they ensured they looked after themselves and controlled what was happening. Living like that and being aware of the risk of everybody being on 1 aircraft would mean that someone senior was requiring them in 1 place. These people would err on side of caution always as thats how they lived.
3.) The alledged conference they were supposed to attend never seems to have happened so finding out whether it was ever going to occur, its subject matter, attendees etc would show if it was real or a made up one designed to lull people into a false sense of security. It had to be BIG as these people don't do small events.
4.) The roadblocks to a peace agreement in NI were not either side but the vested intersts that needed the war to continue, the Raison D'etre of existence and their power came from a war. Any settlement of that would make them and their power redundant.
5.) In 1912 elements in the British Army had an internal mutiny over home rule in Ireland and supported Carson and the Unionists. In the 1970's during the Ulster Workers Council strikes the military effectively stood by while anarchy reigned. This was coordinated and run by a select group of individuals who believed themselves untouchable and loyal to themselves and NOT the UK Government. The UK establishment knows history and together with the US would have known what the risks were and who the people who could keep the war going were. Eliminating a risk in an accident is effective and there is no backlash unlike Bloody Sunday in 1920 as no need to look for the perpatrators.
6.) Setting the scene for "an accident" takes some planning but hell even Tom Clancy did this in one of his books by getting a problem logged days earlier or to build up over months to ensure there is enough"Evidence" to stop crash investigators looking further than it being an accident. In relation to this Chinook crash it seems to be all there.
7.) The weather on the Mull was awful on that day with lots of mist, low visibility etc, perfect flying blind weather, where pilots required to use mapping software and rely on it. The Pilots were special forces trained pilots who knew how to use the software and rely on it. Changing the settings so instead of being at 250 feet you are at 150 feet is easily done when you have all the source codes and is pretty hard to prove when the same people who changed it are investigating it. Keeping them on station for 6 hrs before the flight was also part of the ruse as the copter hit the cliffs at full power so blame the pilots.
A government will kill its citizens when its in its interests to do so.
I have always believed that the people who died on the Chinook were killed maybe not by the UK Govt but by someone who was doing a "Black Op" with the full support of the UK Govt.
Lots of loose ends tied up and the barriers to peace have not all disappeared but just being reduced.
Course its only a stage on the path but eliminating blockers also means that other blockers are aware as a clear message has been sent.
Did the elimination help the GFA ?
Most definitely as the opposition was political in origin with no war campaign being carried out by vested interests.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
racedo,
Perhaps you and WK should find somewhere quiet for a year or three and between you write the definitive book on how those on board ZD 576 were murdered by the Establishment.
I think you would make a lot of Lawyers very happy.
Perhaps you and WK should find somewhere quiet for a year or three and between you write the definitive book on how those on board ZD 576 were murdered by the Establishment.
I think you would make a lot of Lawyers very happy.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a little over 20 years ago that I first met Rick in the Mess at Gutersloh; it doesn't seem like 14 since we lost him together with the rest of the crew and passengers. I'm saddened at the latest "no new evidence" line and the irony of such a statement isn't lost on me; there never was enough evidence. I'm sure this isn't the end of the discussion but I do wish that outrageously right of arc theories about conspiracy, hypothetical technical problems etc would go away. As someone recently said, the burden was on the AVMs to demonstrate "no doubt", they did not achieve this.
PS. Like a few people here, I knew exactly what the nature of the task was that day and it has no relevance on the tragic outcome. So racedo, can I suggest that you take your Elvis-found-alive-on-Mars type theory and peddle it somewhere else?
PS. Like a few people here, I knew exactly what the nature of the task was that day and it has no relevance on the tragic outcome. So racedo, can I suggest that you take your Elvis-found-alive-on-Mars type theory and peddle it somewhere else?
So are you saying that you would load up all your senior officers on one flight without a thought or question ?
Do you think a Government (any) would be unwilling to sacrifice good people for a political objective ?
Of course what I put forward is way out of the field but remember these same politicians are willing to allow people go into a warzone without the appropriate equipment or intel.
Do you think a Government (any) would be unwilling to sacrifice good people for a political objective ?
Of course what I put forward is way out of the field but remember these same politicians are willing to allow people go into a warzone without the appropriate equipment or intel.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
racedo,
The task was generated "in-Theatre" utilising "in-Theatre" assets; the number of Pax would have required 2 Puma's or 1 Chinook. To put it another way; the ability to respond to 2 separate incidents at the same time would have to be sacrificed if the Puma's were utilised whereas the use of the Chinook would carry all Pax in one airframe. No request was made for fixed wing Transport Aircraft to perform the task.
The task was generated "in-Theatre" utilising "in-Theatre" assets; the number of Pax would have required 2 Puma's or 1 Chinook. To put it another way; the ability to respond to 2 separate incidents at the same time would have to be sacrificed if the Puma's were utilised whereas the use of the Chinook would carry all Pax in one airframe. No request was made for fixed wing Transport Aircraft to perform the task.
racedo, please go back to your Tom Clancy thriller.
And exactly where do you think he thought up some of his plots from
or had them verified ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel 4 UK new report. Chinook unsafe?
Channel 4 has exclusive info on the situation.
Says documents from test pilots on the sad day said "ground them"
7pm news now available
Channel 4 News video player
Says documents from test pilots on the sad day said "ground them"
7pm news now available
Channel 4 News video player
Last edited by beamender99; 9th Dec 2008 at 18:56. Reason: News now available