Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perth is very good not boring at all it is not the state of things in Perth that has kept me going on this theme it is the state of the UK. Perhaps you have to spend significant periods away to notice the changes when you return.
If you did not know better you could be excused for thinking London (well, any major town/city) was abandoned by the English.
You really are heading for being just another ethnic minority that happens to reside in that area a particularly disempowered and disenfranchised one at that.
No wonder you won't give a thought to the possibility of a province being dragged down by a dirty trick Ulster was an island of British culture that was fighting for its existence and this crash dealt it a mortal blow - you have let the mainland go without a word of protest, without even discussing the state of things over the years.
.
Many times I have said that you do not have to subscribe to the whole conspiracy theory but, in exploring this line, I believe that several parameters have been identified which have not been satisfactorily answered yet which could have advanced the understanding of this crash they have not been answered after several years.
Strangely enough, the one possibility for which there seems evidence enough to refute convincingly, a control jam, has occupied vast amounts of time and effort by so many.
Perhaps it was just a CFIT;
Perhaps there was an extra activity that went wrong innocently but was too embarrassing to be exposed;
But after all this time the possibility still exists for them to have been relying upon equipment not acknowledged or upon a third party when approaching a known landing spot.
My recent reference to the Sunderland was to point out the similarities, which were:
no fault found with a/c;
illogical (for stated flight intentions) course deviation;
course deviation was towards known landing place but this was not acknowledged;
no satisfactory record of flight planning;
running into low hills that they must have been aware of;
pilots blamed for amateurish nav error when crew skill levels high.
And the further reference to the Liberator was to open your minds to the coincidence of unsatifactorily explained crashes occurring when politically inconvenient passengers were on board.
Had the opportunity for some wilful act become apparent, I would have hoped that it would have woken you up to reality but perhaps that would not be the case perhaps it is far too late.
So enough is enough stick your heads in the sand, rear in the air, and think of England.
If you did not know better you could be excused for thinking London (well, any major town/city) was abandoned by the English.
You really are heading for being just another ethnic minority that happens to reside in that area a particularly disempowered and disenfranchised one at that.
No wonder you won't give a thought to the possibility of a province being dragged down by a dirty trick Ulster was an island of British culture that was fighting for its existence and this crash dealt it a mortal blow - you have let the mainland go without a word of protest, without even discussing the state of things over the years.
.
Many times I have said that you do not have to subscribe to the whole conspiracy theory but, in exploring this line, I believe that several parameters have been identified which have not been satisfactorily answered yet which could have advanced the understanding of this crash they have not been answered after several years.
Strangely enough, the one possibility for which there seems evidence enough to refute convincingly, a control jam, has occupied vast amounts of time and effort by so many.
Perhaps it was just a CFIT;
Perhaps there was an extra activity that went wrong innocently but was too embarrassing to be exposed;
But after all this time the possibility still exists for them to have been relying upon equipment not acknowledged or upon a third party when approaching a known landing spot.
My recent reference to the Sunderland was to point out the similarities, which were:
no fault found with a/c;
illogical (for stated flight intentions) course deviation;
course deviation was towards known landing place but this was not acknowledged;
no satisfactory record of flight planning;
running into low hills that they must have been aware of;
pilots blamed for amateurish nav error when crew skill levels high.
And the further reference to the Liberator was to open your minds to the coincidence of unsatifactorily explained crashes occurring when politically inconvenient passengers were on board.
Had the opportunity for some wilful act become apparent, I would have hoped that it would have woken you up to reality but perhaps that would not be the case perhaps it is far too late.
So enough is enough stick your heads in the sand, rear in the air, and think of England.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
You have consistently and repeatedly been told that the equipment at the heart of your theory was not fitted to the Mull Chinook. Even if it had been surreptitiously fitted it was not cleared for use in any RAF aircraft at that time - thus its use without specific authorisation would have been an act of gross negligence.
Your raising of the 1941 Sunderland crash again shows your almost total lack of knowledge regarding Military Flying. The mere fact that a person being carried in an aircraft has Pilots wings or a Navigators brevet is irrelevent unless that person was trained and authorised to occupy a crew position for that particular flight. The last time I flew from UK to Iceland I could have carried 70+ Pilots/navigators as passengers on the aircraft and none of them would have been qualified to operate it - there were only 7 pilots in the RAF qualified on that type and 3 of them were onboard as crew. The navigation suite fitted on that aircraft was used in only a dozen or so RAF aircraft -none of which carried Navigators.
There is NO evidence which gives even the slightest credence to your theory.
You have consistently and repeatedly been told that the equipment at the heart of your theory was not fitted to the Mull Chinook. Even if it had been surreptitiously fitted it was not cleared for use in any RAF aircraft at that time - thus its use without specific authorisation would have been an act of gross negligence.
Your raising of the 1941 Sunderland crash again shows your almost total lack of knowledge regarding Military Flying. The mere fact that a person being carried in an aircraft has Pilots wings or a Navigators brevet is irrelevent unless that person was trained and authorised to occupy a crew position for that particular flight. The last time I flew from UK to Iceland I could have carried 70+ Pilots/navigators as passengers on the aircraft and none of them would have been qualified to operate it - there were only 7 pilots in the RAF qualified on that type and 3 of them were onboard as crew. The navigation suite fitted on that aircraft was used in only a dozen or so RAF aircraft -none of which carried Navigators.
There is NO evidence which gives even the slightest credence to your theory.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think these chaps were found grossly negligent. Colin Burns, the 'copilot', was on my flight on IOT. ISTR he was sitting down back as the Sqn Cdr and OC Ops were up front. Someone may wish to confirm/deny this.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: wales
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the silent majority, can i just say that i hope all you fine knowledgeable gentlemen will be as vociferous as this when some lowly technician gets stiffed for a tech charge.
I see the wheel has been re-invented yet again and the current name is -
"DEFENCE AVIATION SAFETY CENTRE".
"DEFENCE AVIATION SAFETY CENTRE".
We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a newcomer can someone tell me why this thread is kept permanently at the top of the pile? 25 years on from the accident seems a long time to perpetuate the theme. Whilst I appreciate there are some strongly held views (in both directions) about the Wratten/Day decision surely it is time to let the subject find its natural position in the list?
Standing by to be shot down.
Standing by to be shot down.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind this thread alone is currently on page 199!
You join yesterday and your second post calls for this thread to be removed from the sticky list, how on earth in one day can you consume all the info here and reach that conclsion................unless of course you were had some prior agenda or were prompted to
You join yesterday and your second post calls for this thread to be removed from the sticky list, how on earth in one day can you consume all the info here and reach that conclsion................unless of course you were had some prior agenda or were prompted to
A warm welcome to you Pheasant! As to your query, it merely feels like 25 years as Caz has pointed out. Why is it a sticky, well that's one for PRuNe Pop. For myself it is important 15,25,35.... years after an event when the very regime responsible for packing the creme of this nation's security experts into a knowingly unairworthy aircraft pins the epitaph of Gross Negligence on its pilots without anything other than circumstantial evidence. We have just seen the unacceptable face of British Banking brought to book by the Treasury sub committee armed with chapter and verse by the man who warned his bank ten years ago that they were flouting the regulations. He was fired! Ring any bells, MOD? It seems that the campaign to reverse this injustice is a one trick pony. The cunning plan? To get the MOD to reverse its stance out of a sense of decency. Surprisingly that approach has now failed! My opinion is that revealing the lack of airworthiness of the aircraft also reveals the culpability of the MOD, as with the Hercules, as with the Nimrod. Their arrogant position that only they can judge this case, flouting the findings of the FAI, the HoL, previous SoS's etc would become totally untenable. Most importantly though the thread that connects so many UK Military Aircraft Accidents, ie that of lack of Airworthiness, will secure yet another strand. If you are UK Military Aircrew that should concern you, even if the restoration of the good names of these two pilots doesn't!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
Way back in the original thread (Hit back Here), which no longer appears to be in the archives, it was asserted that the original In Theatre tasking was for 2 Pumas to undertake the task but this was changed to a Chinook by the Theatre Tasking Cell. Doubtless they wished to retain the maximum number of aircraft possible so as to be able to respond to the maximum number of incidents. The AOC and AOC in C would not have been involved in allocating aircraft to NI In-Theatre tasks.
Way back in the original thread (Hit back Here), which no longer appears to be in the archives, it was asserted that the original In Theatre tasking was for 2 Pumas to undertake the task but this was changed to a Chinook by the Theatre Tasking Cell. Doubtless they wished to retain the maximum number of aircraft possible so as to be able to respond to the maximum number of incidents. The AOC and AOC in C would not have been involved in allocating aircraft to NI In-Theatre tasks.
Cazatou:
But they were certainly involved in the decision to retain the type in Squadron service despite repeated advice that it was unairworthy, culminating that very day in the formal advice to that effect by Boscombe Down and their urgent plea that it be grounded immediately. The words kitchen and heat come to mind, not to mention bucks and stopping!
The AOC and AOC in C would not have been involved in allocating aircraft to NI In-Theatre tasks.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
"urgent plea that it be grounded immediately"
So "urgent" that they drafted a letter - No telephone call - No signal - Not even a runner with a cleft stick. The letter wasn't even typed and sent till the next day.
PS Just remind us as to whom the letter was addressed.
"urgent plea that it be grounded immediately"
So "urgent" that they drafted a letter - No telephone call - No signal - Not even a runner with a cleft stick. The letter wasn't even typed and sent till the next day.
PS Just remind us as to whom the letter was addressed.
Caz, if your defence of two senior commanders of the Royal Air Force, following a fatal accident in which so many died and on which they unprecedentedly pinned the blame entirely on the "Gross Negligence" of the deceased pilots, is that they were not informed in accordance with the conventions of Service Writing that the type was unairworthy, then cling onto that by all means. I would again suggest that there are uncomfortable parallels with the scandal in Banking Governance that has emerged. There at least the culprit has bitten the bullet and resigned, no matter how reluctantly, from the FSA, ie the banking regulator. Need I remind you that the MOD is its own regulator regarding airworthiness? Those two senior commanders had responsibilities to ensure that they were cognisant of the airworthiness of the aircraft in the fleets that they commanded. In this case and in others it would appear that they failed in those responsibilities, perhaps negligently, perhaps grossly so! It seems to me that we need someone with the moral courage to step up to the plate and give chapter and verse on what was known, what was advised, what was done or not done as a result. That would be an aviation equivalent of Mr Paul Moore who advised the Commons Treasury Committee on the flouting of Regulations by his bank. Or perhaps bankers have more moral courage than aviators?