Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
This discussion is ecoming very esoteric, Meanwhile can someone say, as I asked on 6th March, whether or not the Chinook is now airworthy. If it is not, then why is it still flying; if it is, then what exactly was done post-Mulll disaster, to make it airworthy? May we please have a clear answer? JP
John
The discussion you describe as “esoteric” (i.e. getting too close for comfort) is primarily concerned with the airworthiness of the fleet at the time. Your question seeks to shift emphasis to the present day. A typical MoD ploy if I may say.
Why not study and draw up a list of what constitutes airworthiness, and then ask if, for example, the various Directorates involved were given the resources to meet their legal obligations.
You’ll quickly realise (but perhaps not acknowledge) that those charged with implementing the regulations are completely hamstrung if under resourced and there is no political will or leadership. In a process which relies so heavily on a “top down” approach, it will become apparent that the pilots (and pax) are merely at the bottom of this food chain in the sense they are totally reliant upon everyone before them doing their job – not just the maintainers they see while doing pre-flight checks. Then ask if the factual evidence gives even the remotest indication that all these mandatory tasks were carried out correctly and in a timely fashion before the crash.
A simple statement of verifiable fact – they were not. Now - who is to blame for that? Answer that one and you get close to the reason why the establishment were so keen to hoist the blame on pilots who couldn't defend themselves.
This discussion is ecoming very esoteric, Meanwhile can someone say, as I asked on 6th March, whether or not the Chinook is now airworthy. If it is not, then why is it still flying; if it is, then what exactly was done post-Mulll disaster, to make it airworthy? May we please have a clear answer? JP
Why not study and draw up a list of what constitutes airworthiness, and then ask if, for example, the various Directorates involved were given the resources to meet their legal obligations.
You’ll quickly realise (but perhaps not acknowledge) that those charged with implementing the regulations are completely hamstrung if under resourced and there is no political will or leadership. In a process which relies so heavily on a “top down” approach, it will become apparent that the pilots (and pax) are merely at the bottom of this food chain in the sense they are totally reliant upon everyone before them doing their job – not just the maintainers they see while doing pre-flight checks. Then ask if the factual evidence gives even the remotest indication that all these mandatory tasks were carried out correctly and in a timely fashion before the crash.
A simple statement of verifiable fact – they were not. Now - who is to blame for that? Answer that one and you get close to the reason why the establishment were so keen to hoist the blame on pilots who couldn't defend themselves.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
"the pilots are merely at the bottom of this food chain"
An unfortunate choice of words given the blatent disregard of ASI's, GASO's and Command Catering Instructions regarding pre and in flight catering for that days tasking.
When they took off on that fatal sortie none of the crew had partaken of a meal (as opposed to the odd chocolate biscuit) for at least 10 hours and in the case of the Captain some 22 hours.
"the pilots are merely at the bottom of this food chain"
An unfortunate choice of words given the blatent disregard of ASI's, GASO's and Command Catering Instructions regarding pre and in flight catering for that days tasking.
When they took off on that fatal sortie none of the crew had partaken of a meal (as opposed to the odd chocolate biscuit) for at least 10 hours and in the case of the Captain some 22 hours.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
"An unfortunate choice of words given the blatent disregard of ASI's, GASO's and Command Catering Instructions regarding pre and in flight catering for that days tasking.
When they took off on that fatal sortie none of the crew had partaken of a meal (as opposed to the odd chocolate biscuit) for at least 10 hours and in the case of the Captain some 22 hours."
I have challenged you before and I challenge you again to prove that
"An unfortunate choice of words given the blatent disregard of ASI's, GASO's and Command Catering Instructions regarding pre and in flight catering for that days tasking.
When they took off on that fatal sortie none of the crew had partaken of a meal (as opposed to the odd chocolate biscuit) for at least 10 hours and in the case of the Captain some 22 hours."
I have challenged you before and I challenge you again to prove that
Caz
Regardless of whether what you say is right or wrong (and I am in no position to say), apologies if any aircrew were offended.
However, I think most aircrew here can differentiate between those interested in their safety, and those dedicated to steering any discussion away from the inconvenient fact that MoD don't give a damn, and have lied and deceived at every turn.
John
In reply to your question, you know I've already said I can't answer your question for certain, but can offer an educated opinion based on available evidence. For the purposes of this thread, the aircraft was clearly not airworthy at the time of the accident. However, I do know what questions to ask, which is always a good start. Again, it is crystal clear who doesn't like them being asked.
I think if you wrote to SofS and asked "Is xxx currently airworthy?", the answer would be the usual "The MoD has a robust regulatory framework". In other words, we have some mandated regulations and a legal duty of care, but we don't bother applying them in full, a God help any of our staff who insist on doing so.
Regardless of whether what you say is right or wrong (and I am in no position to say), apologies if any aircrew were offended.
However, I think most aircrew here can differentiate between those interested in their safety, and those dedicated to steering any discussion away from the inconvenient fact that MoD don't give a damn, and have lied and deceived at every turn.
John
In reply to your question, you know I've already said I can't answer your question for certain, but can offer an educated opinion based on available evidence. For the purposes of this thread, the aircraft was clearly not airworthy at the time of the accident. However, I do know what questions to ask, which is always a good start. Again, it is crystal clear who doesn't like them being asked.
I think if you wrote to SofS and asked "Is xxx currently airworthy?", the answer would be the usual "The MoD has a robust regulatory framework". In other words, we have some mandated regulations and a legal duty of care, but we don't bother applying them in full, a God help any of our staff who insist on doing so.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tucumseh. You are one of the knowledgeable folk who have talked at length here about airworthiness, and my question simply is 'what (if anything) has changed since this disaster'?. Please speak up. Regards JP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
I was merely quoting the BOI regarding catering. They concluded that the crew would have eaten only a few biscuits during the first sortie. There was no record of Flt Lt Tapper having breakfast and no crew meals were ordered for either sortie.
Thus, when they departed on that final sortie, the Co pilot and ALM's had not had a meal for some 10 hours and the Captain for some 22 hours.
You may recall that changes were made to ensure that Aircrew had breakfast before flight.
I was merely quoting the BOI regarding catering. They concluded that the crew would have eaten only a few biscuits during the first sortie. There was no record of Flt Lt Tapper having breakfast and no crew meals were ordered for either sortie.
Thus, when they departed on that final sortie, the Co pilot and ALM's had not had a meal for some 10 hours and the Captain for some 22 hours.
You may recall that changes were made to ensure that Aircrew had breakfast before flight.
Caz for an ex FSO you have, if you don't mind me saying so, a worrying tendency to take supposition as reliable proof. SFFP has challenged your:
and your reply is:
I presume the
is your ever helpful personal inference that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. Really won't do, just as your mantra of flying at high speed.....won't either. The only high speed evidence is that at impact AFAIK, or do you as ever have 'proof' (other than your ingenious supposition that Crew Duty Time worries meant that it had to be thus...)?
When they took off on that fatal sortie none of the crew had partaken of a meal (as opposed to the odd chocolate biscuit) for at least 10 hours and in the case of the Captain some 22 hours."
I was merely quoting the BOI regarding catering. They concluded that the crew would have eaten only a few biscuits during the first sortie. There was no record of Flt Lt Tapper having breakfast and no crew meals were ordered for either sortie.
Thus, when they departed on that final sortie, the Co pilot and ALM's had not had a meal for some 10 hours and the Captain for some 22 hours.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This connector problem. Can we see a picture of it please? Most connectors that have a tendancy to come apart can usually be held together with the use of good old pussers masking tape. Not very scientific I grant you - but it works. I know.................
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Whether or not the crew had been in a position to eat or not before the flight and if it had any relevance to the cause of the accident - if the system was at fault by not allowing the crew to eat, why, Cazatou, do you try to turn this around to make it a crew "negligence" issue?
It was quite common for SH crews to have to scrounge a meal as and where they ended up. Sometimes we went without. If we were on the early wave, or on a callout, breakfast was nowhere in the equation. If we got a lunch break programmed in, we were lucky. We flew all day (in my case, more often, all night) and it was by no means uncommon to get just one meal, supplemented by snacks, if we were lucky, in a day. It was by no means unusual to be at a place over mealtimes where no catering was available.
You have a viewpoint swayed by your cosy VIP fixed wing background. Catering, hotel, waiter, G&T, snap fingers etc. You plainly have very little idea of how SH were obliged to operate in NI. Although I flew SH for most of my 18 years, I never was in a position to eat in flight - 100 feet AGL is no place to be flying around with a white cardboard box on one's lap.
You still appear to be on a mission (as you previously were as K52) to string up the crew for any alleged breach of the rules that you can muster. Again, for SH crews, NI was an operational theatre. It possibly wasn't for yourself as a VIP pilot flying the ILS when not well above the small arms and SAM threat from airport to airport (although you were still eligible for your medal). We were flying to fight a very real terrorist threat on a daily basis whilst having to comply with what were effectively two sets of rules.
It was quite common for SH crews to have to scrounge a meal as and where they ended up. Sometimes we went without. If we were on the early wave, or on a callout, breakfast was nowhere in the equation. If we got a lunch break programmed in, we were lucky. We flew all day (in my case, more often, all night) and it was by no means uncommon to get just one meal, supplemented by snacks, if we were lucky, in a day. It was by no means unusual to be at a place over mealtimes where no catering was available.
You have a viewpoint swayed by your cosy VIP fixed wing background. Catering, hotel, waiter, G&T, snap fingers etc. You plainly have very little idea of how SH were obliged to operate in NI. Although I flew SH for most of my 18 years, I never was in a position to eat in flight - 100 feet AGL is no place to be flying around with a white cardboard box on one's lap.
You still appear to be on a mission (as you previously were as K52) to string up the crew for any alleged breach of the rules that you can muster. Again, for SH crews, NI was an operational theatre. It possibly wasn't for yourself as a VIP pilot flying the ILS when not well above the small arms and SAM threat from airport to airport (although you were still eligible for your medal). We were flying to fight a very real terrorist threat on a daily basis whilst having to comply with what were effectively two sets of rules.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it intriguing that, on one hand people highlight the absence of a bowl of cornflakes as if this was a direct causal factor, but on the other seem to ignore more irritating elements as questionable airworthiness and unsound judgements.
PS. Having worked with SH for a while when in the RAF I can't remember one occasion where an operational crew actually managed 'three square' in a single day. Something to do with the tasking regime and operational tempo demanded by the hierarchy?
PS. Having worked with SH for a while when in the RAF I can't remember one occasion where an operational crew actually managed 'three square' in a single day. Something to do with the tasking regime and operational tempo demanded by the hierarchy?
bast0n
Generally speaking, masking tape is inadvisable in an aircraft. Contaminants such as hydraulic oil tend to degrade the adhesive whereupon the tape itself becomes FOD. The adhesive also degrades electrical contacts. The regs require an engineering solution, for example a mechanical locking device – wire locking is a crude but effective example. This is routine day to day stuff for a design office and why I can’t understand why there was any need for MoD(PE) to issue an SI. I, too, wish I knew more about the detail other than what we read in the official record (which, as we all know, is not actually required to be truthful or complete).
John
When you asked the same question last year I advised you what questions to ask SofS. Assuming you (a) haven’t asked or (b) think my questions inappropriate, please tell me why and we can work together to satisfy your curiosity. PM me by all means. But, like I said, last time I formally asked MoD the reply was “We do not have records”, which itself is an admission that the airworthiness audit trail is irretrievably broken.
Generally speaking, masking tape is inadvisable in an aircraft. Contaminants such as hydraulic oil tend to degrade the adhesive whereupon the tape itself becomes FOD. The adhesive also degrades electrical contacts. The regs require an engineering solution, for example a mechanical locking device – wire locking is a crude but effective example. This is routine day to day stuff for a design office and why I can’t understand why there was any need for MoD(PE) to issue an SI. I, too, wish I knew more about the detail other than what we read in the official record (which, as we all know, is not actually required to be truthful or complete).
John
When you asked the same question last year I advised you what questions to ask SofS. Assuming you (a) haven’t asked or (b) think my questions inappropriate, please tell me why and we can work together to satisfy your curiosity. PM me by all means. But, like I said, last time I formally asked MoD the reply was “We do not have records”, which itself is an admission that the airworthiness audit trail is irretrievably broken.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz knows what he has posted is utter tosh because I have told him so before but to help him remember I will ask him to consider the following
During the period 1990 to 97 I was a Puma crewman, part of the SH force. From 92 to 94 I was based at RAF Aldergrove on 230 Sqn and during that tour I spent a period of time directly responsible for inflight rations. The term inflight when applied to Aldergrove and the SH force in general was a bit of a misnomer as we rarely actually flew anywhere with rations on board. It was my task to collate flying hours from the monthly auth sheets on a chock to chock basis, file the appropriate paperwork with the catering office and then submit a food order to the NAAFI, based on our monetary entitlement once the catering office had worked it out.
I would make regular trips to the NAAFI store where I would collect a huge variety of items to include bread and associated spreads, tins of corned beef and the like, cereals, biscuits, crackers, crips, chocolate, soup, individual meals, pies etc etc, suffice to say there was bucket loads of scoff.
The food was stored in the crewroom and was readily available 24/7 due to the nature of Op's. It was common place for pilots and crewman to arrive early for work and have rations in the crewroom, it was common practice in between sorties for pilots and crewman to eat rations in the crewroom and it was common practice for a few drunken individuals to leave the Swift or Lair after last orders and eat rations in the crewroom prior to going to bed.
In summary there was a shed load of food and it was available 24/7 and whilst there may be a suggestion that breakfast in the mess was missed is there a shred of conclusive evidence to say that the 4 crew members did not eat, at some stage during the day, in the crewroom?
I look forward to your response.
During the period 1990 to 97 I was a Puma crewman, part of the SH force. From 92 to 94 I was based at RAF Aldergrove on 230 Sqn and during that tour I spent a period of time directly responsible for inflight rations. The term inflight when applied to Aldergrove and the SH force in general was a bit of a misnomer as we rarely actually flew anywhere with rations on board. It was my task to collate flying hours from the monthly auth sheets on a chock to chock basis, file the appropriate paperwork with the catering office and then submit a food order to the NAAFI, based on our monetary entitlement once the catering office had worked it out.
I would make regular trips to the NAAFI store where I would collect a huge variety of items to include bread and associated spreads, tins of corned beef and the like, cereals, biscuits, crackers, crips, chocolate, soup, individual meals, pies etc etc, suffice to say there was bucket loads of scoff.
The food was stored in the crewroom and was readily available 24/7 due to the nature of Op's. It was common place for pilots and crewman to arrive early for work and have rations in the crewroom, it was common practice in between sorties for pilots and crewman to eat rations in the crewroom and it was common practice for a few drunken individuals to leave the Swift or Lair after last orders and eat rations in the crewroom prior to going to bed.
In summary there was a shed load of food and it was available 24/7 and whilst there may be a suggestion that breakfast in the mess was missed is there a shred of conclusive evidence to say that the 4 crew members did not eat, at some stage during the day, in the crewroom?
I look forward to your response.
The adhesive also degrades electrical contacts
You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge. Light duty electrical contacts are extremely sensitive to organic material, either too much or, strangely in some cases, too little. The "little" is usually codeposited in the plating process.
But now we are getting esoteric.
I like your offer to John to work together. But first, he would have to agree that the Chinook was not airworthy in 1994, based on the S/L Burke testimony. How about it John?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
Whilst you're about it (see above entry) and are so keen to repeat your question, you still haven't answered mine:
I will comment on the question you ask, though I don't know the answer:
I think you're trying to suggest that nothing has changed on the Chinook Mk2 since the accident involving ZD576 and that, as no more have crashed in mysterious circumstances, there must have been nothing wrong with ZD576. Sorry old fruit, but that logic doesn't work. To use an analagy, a Ford Cortina could crash because the man at the factory forgot to attach the brake master cylinder correctly. The fact that no similar accidents have occurred doesn't rule out the possibility that the relevant part design/attachment instructions are faulty and that the same could happen again.
SeldomFit
I agree that there were ample opportunities to eat, not forgetting any food that the crew may have bought separately, and the absence of a record showing the crew to have had breakfast in the Mess is not proof that they had not eaten. Plenty of folks regularly get through the day on a sandwich, a chocolate bar and coffee.
Whilst you're about it (see above entry) and are so keen to repeat your question, you still haven't answered mine:
several possible explanations have been made, but you (and others, including Air Marshals Wratten & Day) disagree that they are credible. Yet, to use my favourite example quoted several times on this thread, and alluded to above, another case exists of a similar Chinook that flew in a different direction to that intended by the pilots, which was out of control for a significant period of time and which subsequently landed. Despite exhaustive engineering examination, no fault could be found in the intact airframe. It happened, (is therefore de facto credible, so why do you dismiss it even as a 'possibility'? Please discuss.
I think you're trying to suggest that nothing has changed on the Chinook Mk2 since the accident involving ZD576 and that, as no more have crashed in mysterious circumstances, there must have been nothing wrong with ZD576. Sorry old fruit, but that logic doesn't work. To use an analagy, a Ford Cortina could crash because the man at the factory forgot to attach the brake master cylinder correctly. The fact that no similar accidents have occurred doesn't rule out the possibility that the relevant part design/attachment instructions are faulty and that the same could happen again.
SeldomFit
I agree that there were ample opportunities to eat, not forgetting any food that the crew may have bought separately, and the absence of a record showing the crew to have had breakfast in the Mess is not proof that they had not eaten. Plenty of folks regularly get through the day on a sandwich, a chocolate bar and coffee.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Meadowbank. We seemto be back to the suggestion that the aircraft was out of control, or at least suffered serious undemanded control imputs. This is of course sheer speculation, completely lacking any proof technical or otherwise. What is more, I find it difficult to reconcile that theory with the fact that the a/c entered a climb which, had the machine been on intended track, would have enabled it to clear the hill ahead by around 300ft. But it was not on track, and the hill ahead was around 300 ft higher than the crew expected. Nor does the control theory tie up with the very heavy rudder control imput in the last few seconds of flight.The aircraft must have been under control. But we have been here before, have we not. Regards. JP
For once two sentences in one of JPs posts make sense:
The aircraft must have been under control.
This is of course sheer speculation, completely lacking any proof technical or otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank,
I admire yours and other efforts in trying to challenge JP in this manner but I am afraid it will be a very cold day in hell before you get him to give you a direct answer. You have asked him a very specific question with regards to a previous Chinook UFCM
"It happened, (is therefore de facto credible, so why do you dismiss it even as a 'possibility'? Please discuss."
In his reply he conveniently ignores your question and in almost politician style spins out a reply that itself is riddled with speculation.
A long while while back, post #2776 in Oct 07, he was asked to tell us what the flight deck crew could see out of the cockpit windows prior to the aircraft impacting the mull and his reply is thus, and I have highlighted the most telling parts
Brian. No, we do not know and we shall never know what the crew could see from the cockpit, but there are only two possibilities; one, they could see ahead to the coast and the cloud-covered hills, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to turn away; or, two, they could not see clearly ahead, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to have turned away.
Please say which version of their forward vision you prefer. Regards. JP
Probably the most vital piece of information with regards to this disaster is not available, and never will be yet JP is happy with the verdict given.
Now consider his assertion that there are only two possibilities, his choice of words then again how on earth can you arrive at the verdict in this case based on possibilities?
The only thing we all know for certain and that is that no one currently alive on this planet knows what actually happened that day and I challenge JP et al to prove that fact to be incorrect.
ONT='Tahoma','sans-serif'][IMG]file:///C:/Users/TRUSTM~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG][/font][FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']21st October 2007, 16:52 [/font]
I admire yours and other efforts in trying to challenge JP in this manner but I am afraid it will be a very cold day in hell before you get him to give you a direct answer. You have asked him a very specific question with regards to a previous Chinook UFCM
"It happened, (is therefore de facto credible, so why do you dismiss it even as a 'possibility'? Please discuss."
In his reply he conveniently ignores your question and in almost politician style spins out a reply that itself is riddled with speculation.
A long while while back, post #2776 in Oct 07, he was asked to tell us what the flight deck crew could see out of the cockpit windows prior to the aircraft impacting the mull and his reply is thus, and I have highlighted the most telling parts
Brian. No, we do not know and we shall never know what the crew could see from the cockpit, but there are only two possibilities; one, they could see ahead to the coast and the cloud-covered hills, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to turn away; or, two, they could not see clearly ahead, in which case it would have been prudent airmanship to have turned away.
Please say which version of their forward vision you prefer. Regards. JP
Probably the most vital piece of information with regards to this disaster is not available, and never will be yet JP is happy with the verdict given.
Now consider his assertion that there are only two possibilities, his choice of words then again how on earth can you arrive at the verdict in this case based on possibilities?
The only thing we all know for certain and that is that no one currently alive on this planet knows what actually happened that day and I challenge JP et al to prove that fact to be incorrect.
ONT='Tahoma','sans-serif'][IMG]file:///C:/Users/TRUSTM~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG][/font][FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']21st October 2007, 16:52 [/font]
[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif'] #[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']2776[/font] (permalink) [/font]