Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
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
This is not exactly Chinook stuff, but it may give a clue as to the mindset of the MoD. Taken from an article in the Daily Mail - 5 Aug 02.
"When asked if French burgers were being fed to Army, RAF and Navy personnel a spokesman said: "Categorically no".
She added that the Department would be 'annoyed' if the Daily Mail suggested such a thing.
However, when precise details of the operation in France were put to the MoD it was forced to confirm that they were accurate.
The spokesman admitted she had known these details when the first enquiry was made but chose not to volunteer them.
The MoD said: "This was a commercial decision by the contractor."
Article end.
So the MoD tell porkies do they?? They really do believe they are answerable to no-one!
It also proves that all we do with regard the campaign will make a difference. Sooner or later the MoD will have to admit that they broke their own rules and there is no evidence to support their shameful verdict.
We too can force them to confirm what we all know!
Keep up the good work folks.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
"When asked if French burgers were being fed to Army, RAF and Navy personnel a spokesman said: "Categorically no".
She added that the Department would be 'annoyed' if the Daily Mail suggested such a thing.
However, when precise details of the operation in France were put to the MoD it was forced to confirm that they were accurate.
The spokesman admitted she had known these details when the first enquiry was made but chose not to volunteer them.
The MoD said: "This was a commercial decision by the contractor."
Article end.
So the MoD tell porkies do they?? They really do believe they are answerable to no-one!
It also proves that all we do with regard the campaign will make a difference. Sooner or later the MoD will have to admit that they broke their own rules and there is no evidence to support their shameful verdict.
We too can force them to confirm what we all know!
Keep up the good work folks.
Regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Forres, Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
I have only read details of the Chinook crash in the press. I was on duty at Kinloss on the day of the accident and have been troubled by my recollections of the weather on the day for some time now. As I recall it was a very strong SSE airflow with extensive low cloud. I assume this much was already brought out at the enquiry.
My point is that such flows through the North Channel tend to be stronger than predicted. Could this have had an effect on where the crew thought they were and if there was a stronger wind could it have been possible that were further north than they were led to believe.
What bearing this has on the Navigation kit on the Chinook I have no idea. Might be nothing.
My point is that such flows through the North Channel tend to be stronger than predicted. Could this have had an effect on where the crew thought they were and if there was a stronger wind could it have been possible that were further north than they were led to believe.
What bearing this has on the Navigation kit on the Chinook I have no idea. Might be nothing.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: tanker ghetto
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03066- the wind would of have no bearing on the nav kit no matter how windy it was (assuming it was servicable) . Also having spoken to someone involved with the investigation at the time, it is my understanding that no error could be determined in the remains of the nav kit.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the opportunity to read the government reply to the house of commons investigation today. Unfortunately, I regret to say that I must agree with the findings of the BOI and the original AAIB report (of which I have also read).
Sorry guys. Looks like they made a mistake. They should have seen the hill, and if they didn't, they should've climbed. Simple as that. The facts disprove any other hypotheses. I know this isn't what people want to hear, but I can't help but agree with the compelling evidence. There may be aggravating circumstances, but I think it's case closed.
Whether or not the AC was functioning properly at the point of impact is irrelevant. They entered a waypoint change which they would not have done if they had a problem. They should have been aware of the close proximity of the high ground, and taken appropriate action.
Press-on-itis perhaps (either self induced, or maybe externally induced? who knows?)
Sorry guys. Looks like they made a mistake. They should have seen the hill, and if they didn't, they should've climbed. Simple as that. The facts disprove any other hypotheses. I know this isn't what people want to hear, but I can't help but agree with the compelling evidence. There may be aggravating circumstances, but I think it's case closed.
Whether or not the AC was functioning properly at the point of impact is irrelevant. They entered a waypoint change which they would not have done if they had a problem. They should have been aware of the close proximity of the high ground, and taken appropriate action.
Press-on-itis perhaps (either self induced, or maybe externally induced? who knows?)
Last edited by AirfixPilot; 9th Aug 2002 at 21:00.
Chinook
I remember reading an article in one of the aviation magazines,maybe Air Forces Monthly? which seemed to indicate that the nav gear (Tans) could have been in error by several hundred yards,as to waypoint,selection of next track,etc, which may have led the crew to think they had further to go before changing track.Therefore ,they(the crew) did not consider(supposition-of course) that they were as close to the Mull as they actually were. I did actually fly past the Mull on the day,low -level,and could see it was covered in cloud ,at least the top half,but vis underneath was good-earlier in the afternoon,on a low-level sortie to Lossie.As an ex-FSO(1Gp) I find it very hard to reconcile that the Senior Officers should have come to the conclusion regarding negligence as they did,as I had a lot of respect for both.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirfixPilot
Is your true name Wratten? Or perhaps Day? Whatever, I think you should re-read the reports - THEN read the HoL enquiry findings. It is THAT enquiry which takes into account the other two and the findings they reached show that they were wrong. By NOT reading the Hol enquiry your view will certainly be blinkered.
Why pick on ONE single item to 'support your argument'? It's relevance is not the sole factor. Many more have come to light that were not in the original reports.
A quick check back will get you to the Hol findings. But if you wait a few seconds I suspect the link will magically appear!
Is your true name Wratten? Or perhaps Day? Whatever, I think you should re-read the reports - THEN read the HoL enquiry findings. It is THAT enquiry which takes into account the other two and the findings they reached show that they were wrong. By NOT reading the Hol enquiry your view will certainly be blinkered.
Why pick on ONE single item to 'support your argument'? It's relevance is not the sole factor. Many more have come to light that were not in the original reports.
A quick check back will get you to the Hol findings. But if you wait a few seconds I suspect the link will magically appear!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirfixPilot
Like InFinRetirement I too would commend you to read the HOL report at http://www.publications.parliament.u...in/25/2501.htm
Your comment "looks like they made a mistake"destroys your case. Looks like is not enough. They may or may not have made a mistake biut we don't know. Therefire we cannot find them guilty. Simple really.
You have to be certain beyond all doubt that the two pilots should have forseen the consequences of their actions. [Edited by slj 11 August]
Read what the Lords say about the test at paragraph 147
"147.In the context of the Air Marshals' conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made, regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event.
It must be borne in mind that it is not known at what height or speed the aircraft was flying at the way point change, nor its position in relation to cloud. However Sir William accepted the possibility that they could have seen the coastline under cloud cover (Q 364).
Furthermore the Air Marshals' views as to the danger of the aircraft being at or in the vicinity of the way point change position even if the crew had intended to alter course at that point were much influenced by the high speed at which they assumed the aircraft then to be travelling - an assumption which, having regard to the deficiencies in the simulation which have now emerged, may no longer be justified"
Your other point "Whether or not the AC was functioning properly at the point of impact is irrelevant" is nonsense when looked at in thew conrtext of the lords Report. It was also the rock on which Day and Wratten perished.
Surely you now accept the Lords Select Committee response to your finding?
Like InFinRetirement I too would commend you to read the HOL report at http://www.publications.parliament.u...in/25/2501.htm
Your comment "looks like they made a mistake"destroys your case. Looks like is not enough. They may or may not have made a mistake biut we don't know. Therefire we cannot find them guilty. Simple really.
You have to be certain beyond all doubt that the two pilots should have forseen the consequences of their actions. [Edited by slj 11 August]
Read what the Lords say about the test at paragraph 147
"147.In the context of the Air Marshals' conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made, regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event.
It must be borne in mind that it is not known at what height or speed the aircraft was flying at the way point change, nor its position in relation to cloud. However Sir William accepted the possibility that they could have seen the coastline under cloud cover (Q 364).
Furthermore the Air Marshals' views as to the danger of the aircraft being at or in the vicinity of the way point change position even if the crew had intended to alter course at that point were much influenced by the high speed at which they assumed the aircraft then to be travelling - an assumption which, having regard to the deficiencies in the simulation which have now emerged, may no longer be justified"
Your other point "Whether or not the AC was functioning properly at the point of impact is irrelevant" is nonsense when looked at in thew conrtext of the lords Report. It was also the rock on which Day and Wratten perished.
Surely you now accept the Lords Select Committee response to your finding?
Last edited by slj; 11th Aug 2002 at 08:13.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airfix
Very strongly suggest you read the ENTIRE thread.
A lot of people have.
You will then probably not refer to the House of Lords Select Committee Report as the 'house of commons investigation'.
It is also advised that you read, in its entirety, the Select Committee Report, including the evidence presented.
These tasks will take about two hours.
Please let us know your subsequent views.
MHP.
Very strongly suggest you read the ENTIRE thread.
A lot of people have.
You will then probably not refer to the House of Lords Select Committee Report as the 'house of commons investigation'.
It is also advised that you read, in its entirety, the Select Committee Report, including the evidence presented.
These tasks will take about two hours.
Please let us know your subsequent views.
MHP.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...and thus I submit that is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any deceased aircrew to be found grossly negligent without both FDR AND CVR evidence."
Is this statement too sweeping? or incorrect?
I would also ask if someone could give me details on any other (if any cases) where other deceased aircrew were found even negligent with or with out FDR or CVR.
Is this statement too sweeping? or incorrect?
I would also ask if someone could give me details on any other (if any cases) where other deceased aircrew were found even negligent with or with out FDR or CVR.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLJ,
...don't wish to be picky, but....
Er... actually, no. In the interests of accuracy, you have to be certain with no doubt whatsoever .
I am happy to assume that you have fat fingers and a small keyboard and that this was a typo ...... ?
Regards,
PAAA
...don't wish to be picky, but....
You have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. . Read what the Lords say about the test at paragraph 147
I am happy to assume that you have fat fingers and a small keyboard and that this was a typo ...... ?
Regards,
PAAA
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua Ad Asda
I hang my head in shame.
You are absolutely correct and i have edited the original.
The Lords Select Committee did say no doubt whatsoever. It was also repeated in paragrap 1053 when Lord Hooson was questioning the two air marshals.
I hang my head in shame.
You are absolutely correct and i have edited the original.
The Lords Select Committee did say no doubt whatsoever. It was also repeated in paragrap 1053 when Lord Hooson was questioning the two air marshals.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lancashire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and Slow, It is very difficult, but not impossible to show gross negligence without CVR and ADR. Many years ago (70's I think), a Lightning pilot decided to give an impromptu flying display off the Yorkshire coast. He flew into the sea. The display and crash were witnessed by hundreds of onlookers. He was not authorised for a display nor was he supposed to be off the Yorkshire coast at the time. Regardless of other factors, he was clearly negligent. Not particularly relevant to this case, our boys were authorised for the sortie, and there are no direct witnesses to the crash. If a skilled observer or flight survivor had witnessed the final few seconds of flight it may have been possible to show negligence without recourse to a CVR and ADR or pilots testimony. This is not the case therefore there must be significant doubt.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yetti. Concerning your Lightning mate in the '70s. I believe two things were very different then. The standard of proof at a B o I was much lower - balance of probability vs. absolute certainty. Second the proceedings of the Board (and hence the reputation of the pilot) would have been protected by the OSA and Privilege. They could not have been released to the public domain for 30 years at least.
FV - the Lightning accident was well publicised at the time and was also captured on film.
2 Lightnings were tasked to position for a display which was due to take place the next day. The leader of the pair received an unofficial request to do a flypast at a nearby recruiting show - and aksed for approval. His authoriser refused this in no uncertain terms and ordered him to proceed directly to the airport as tasked. Later on the No 2 was still being prepped, so the leader was re-authorised to proceed on his own..... He flew past the recruiting display at 100-200 ft before flying an impromptu display which terminated when the ac stalled and crashed into the sea, killing the pilot.
Why on earth did he decide to do this? Who knows. Because it would almost certainly have been his last ever flight in the RAF had he landed at his destination in any case - such gross indiscipline would never have been excused.
2 Lightnings were tasked to position for a display which was due to take place the next day. The leader of the pair received an unofficial request to do a flypast at a nearby recruiting show - and aksed for approval. His authoriser refused this in no uncertain terms and ordered him to proceed directly to the airport as tasked. Later on the No 2 was still being prepped, so the leader was re-authorised to proceed on his own..... He flew past the recruiting display at 100-200 ft before flying an impromptu display which terminated when the ac stalled and crashed into the sea, killing the pilot.
Why on earth did he decide to do this? Who knows. Because it would almost certainly have been his last ever flight in the RAF had he landed at his destination in any case - such gross indiscipline would never have been excused.
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
Low & Slow,
Taken from Air Marshal Day's very own slides used during the Lords Select Committee:
Negligence
- The duty to take care varies according to the operation being performed and a duty to take a very high degree of care is rightly imposed upon a person flying an aircraft. In such circumstances what might be trivial in other fields may, when associated with aircraft operations, amount to negligence which justifies severe criticism.
- The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently.
- ...Neglect means a breach of duty to take care or, in other words, carelessness in a matter where care is demanded.
Degrees of Negligence
- Minor Degree
- Gross Degree
- Recklessness
- Disobedience
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Taken from Air Marshal Day's very own slides used during the Lords Select Committee:
Negligence
- The duty to take care varies according to the operation being performed and a duty to take a very high degree of care is rightly imposed upon a person flying an aircraft. In such circumstances what might be trivial in other fields may, when associated with aircraft operations, amount to negligence which justifies severe criticism.
- The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently.
- ...Neglect means a breach of duty to take care or, in other words, carelessness in a matter where care is demanded.
Degrees of Negligence
- Minor Degree
- Gross Degree
- Recklessness
- Disobedience
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and Slow and Brian D
In law the term is negligence full stop. You are either negligent or not.
Brian, Day's introduction to negligence is acceptable. If however, he introduced various categories of negligence as you state
Degrees of Negligence
- Minor Degree
- Gross Degree
- Recklessness
- Disobedience
then he is way out of tune with the legal approach to neligence.
In law the term is negligence full stop. You are either negligent or not.
Brian, Day's introduction to negligence is acceptable. If however, he introduced various categories of negligence as you state
Degrees of Negligence
- Minor Degree
- Gross Degree
- Recklessness
- Disobedience
then he is way out of tune with the legal approach to neligence.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfix -
'It looks like they made a mistake. They should have seen the hill, and if they didn't, they should've climbed'.
I would very much like to hear your absolute proof that they were capable of full control of the aircraft at that time.
'It looks like they made a mistake. They should have seen the hill, and if they didn't, they should've climbed'.
I would very much like to hear your absolute proof that they were capable of full control of the aircraft at that time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally, I have read the House of Lords report (my apologies to the HoC), together with every other major publication on this subject, including the excellent un-abridged (and unbiased) AAIB report. Incidentally, if you really did take the time, it takes far longer than two hours to this thread, let alone it's predecessors!
I had written a very long and drawn out explanation to my reasoning, but have concluded that there is no point or benefit to be had in adding fuel to an already emotionally fired subject. Not least for the reason that there is no one here who wants to hear that side of the argument. Needless to say, in my opinion, the report from the Lords is even more biased and unfounded than the reports that followed it. My view has not been changed by that document, or any of the theories and opinions expressed on this thread.
Nevertheless, keep up the fight, for the names of the pilots, and for piece of mind for the families envolved. The support is there and the cause true.
PS) I am genuinely sorry if my opinion or reasoning offends those reading this post. It is but an opinion...
"With probability and physics behind you, you can win anything"
I had written a very long and drawn out explanation to my reasoning, but have concluded that there is no point or benefit to be had in adding fuel to an already emotionally fired subject. Not least for the reason that there is no one here who wants to hear that side of the argument. Needless to say, in my opinion, the report from the Lords is even more biased and unfounded than the reports that followed it. My view has not been changed by that document, or any of the theories and opinions expressed on this thread.
Nevertheless, keep up the fight, for the names of the pilots, and for piece of mind for the families envolved. The support is there and the cause true.
PS) I am genuinely sorry if my opinion or reasoning offends those reading this post. It is but an opinion...
"With probability and physics behind you, you can win anything"