Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster
<<It is also apparent that there is some confusion as to the speed and ROC of the ac as the crew penetrated cloud, as they eventually did do - even Boeing's best guess seems like a stab in the dark. Helos do not zoom climb like jets, as you well know - but this is a fact that may have been lost on some? >>
I should wait until someone else qualifies this but what the hell.
While a helo does not have that combination of momentum and aerofoils that can, with a pull on the stick, execute a “zoom climb” regardless of power (eg as a glider can), it has two sources of “energy” that can indeed allow a zoom climb:
the stored energy in the rotors;
the thrust in excess of that for holding it up in the air (lift = weight) that is used for propelling it along at its cruising speed that is balanced by the drag.
You only have to look at air displays by Chinooks to realise how agile they can be when their payload is not excessive (and ZD576 that day was not heavily loaded with respect to two engines operating).
If you go through Boeing's “Analysis of Available Data”, by Mitchel, you would appreciate that it was a fair effort of rational analysis attending to speed/distance calculations in great detail; for a start contrary to the picture of excessive speed that seemed to be presented by many, they had simply covered their route at thecruising speed for an HC2 Chinook;
further, and I suggest of great significance to understanding this crash, after the turn at waypoint change their airspeed on that final leg had dropped significantly (this being masked by the increase in wind speed as the landmass was approached), the Boeing analyst concluding that they were slowing down; that the engine powers were found matched suggests that this was a steady state for a while in turn suggesting a planned slow down.
If the a/c had been continuing at its cruise speed, it would have had the thrust component used for pushing it along through the air available, at a pull on the cyclic, to push it up.
Indeed this does cause unwanted ballooning when not complimented carefully with the requisite working on the thrust lever when you want to do a fast approach/landing, does it not? That they had not zoomed up significantly despite having cranked her back (nose up 30 deg from memory? - path 20 deg up?) suggests that this extra thrust was not available reinforcing Boeing's conclusion that they were slowing down. The bit that they had climbed seems due to the stored rotor energy alone (reduced to about 90%?). The thrust lever, having been pulled fully up, had acted as collective but the engine system had not had time to respond as the power was still matched. They had been taken by surprise.
So how could they have been surprised by entering the ground mist when they had turned towards ground that was higher than them and they had started to slow down? Only that they had got there sooner than they expected is surely the only logical explanation.
They had turned onto a heading, reflected in the HP's course selector, that was the optimum approach for a known landing area, for which waypoint A would have been an obvious inner marker, with a RADALT warning set appropriately for an imminent landing, with the HP's baro alt subscale setting appropriate as a QFE for the elevation of that landing area, and they had started slowing down. And they were using a call sign appropriate for an exercise.
Looks like it is at least worth some consideration that, for whatever reason, they were doing a fast approach to that landing area but, for whatever reason, misjudged their closing rate.
Because of the nature of the ground there (topography, lack of features, nature of vegetation, etc) a fast approach to that landing area on that track is difficult to judge in the best of conditions – in the conditions of the day, it would have been folly to approach at speed without some other trusted reference other than the mk1 eyeball or the SuperTANS – and had that other reference been for whatever reason been misguiding them, it would have been hard to pick up on the error from visual cues until it was too late.
<<It is also apparent that there is some confusion as to the speed and ROC of the ac as the crew penetrated cloud, as they eventually did do - even Boeing's best guess seems like a stab in the dark. Helos do not zoom climb like jets, as you well know - but this is a fact that may have been lost on some? >>
I should wait until someone else qualifies this but what the hell.
While a helo does not have that combination of momentum and aerofoils that can, with a pull on the stick, execute a “zoom climb” regardless of power (eg as a glider can), it has two sources of “energy” that can indeed allow a zoom climb:
the stored energy in the rotors;
the thrust in excess of that for holding it up in the air (lift = weight) that is used for propelling it along at its cruising speed that is balanced by the drag.
You only have to look at air displays by Chinooks to realise how agile they can be when their payload is not excessive (and ZD576 that day was not heavily loaded with respect to two engines operating).
If you go through Boeing's “Analysis of Available Data”, by Mitchel, you would appreciate that it was a fair effort of rational analysis attending to speed/distance calculations in great detail; for a start contrary to the picture of excessive speed that seemed to be presented by many, they had simply covered their route at thecruising speed for an HC2 Chinook;
further, and I suggest of great significance to understanding this crash, after the turn at waypoint change their airspeed on that final leg had dropped significantly (this being masked by the increase in wind speed as the landmass was approached), the Boeing analyst concluding that they were slowing down; that the engine powers were found matched suggests that this was a steady state for a while in turn suggesting a planned slow down.
If the a/c had been continuing at its cruise speed, it would have had the thrust component used for pushing it along through the air available, at a pull on the cyclic, to push it up.
Indeed this does cause unwanted ballooning when not complimented carefully with the requisite working on the thrust lever when you want to do a fast approach/landing, does it not? That they had not zoomed up significantly despite having cranked her back (nose up 30 deg from memory? - path 20 deg up?) suggests that this extra thrust was not available reinforcing Boeing's conclusion that they were slowing down. The bit that they had climbed seems due to the stored rotor energy alone (reduced to about 90%?). The thrust lever, having been pulled fully up, had acted as collective but the engine system had not had time to respond as the power was still matched. They had been taken by surprise.
So how could they have been surprised by entering the ground mist when they had turned towards ground that was higher than them and they had started to slow down? Only that they had got there sooner than they expected is surely the only logical explanation.
They had turned onto a heading, reflected in the HP's course selector, that was the optimum approach for a known landing area, for which waypoint A would have been an obvious inner marker, with a RADALT warning set appropriately for an imminent landing, with the HP's baro alt subscale setting appropriate as a QFE for the elevation of that landing area, and they had started slowing down. And they were using a call sign appropriate for an exercise.
Looks like it is at least worth some consideration that, for whatever reason, they were doing a fast approach to that landing area but, for whatever reason, misjudged their closing rate.
Because of the nature of the ground there (topography, lack of features, nature of vegetation, etc) a fast approach to that landing area on that track is difficult to judge in the best of conditions – in the conditions of the day, it would have been folly to approach at speed without some other trusted reference other than the mk1 eyeball or the SuperTANS – and had that other reference been for whatever reason been misguiding them, it would have been hard to pick up on the error from visual cues until it was too late.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster
Thank you for a well thought-out, thorough and reasoned post, which must have taken a significant time to write.
I agree.
John Purdey
Thank you for carefully reading my last post. I recommend that you also read flipster's posting above. Unfortunately, even if I accept that you and I will never agree, it is unseemly and impolite for you to ignore my question to you:
I'll take your failure to answer as a 'Yes'!
It is also impolite that, having carefully tried to answer your points, and at some length, you answer in such a cursory and arrogant manner.
With all good wishes,
Meadowbank
Thank you for a well thought-out, thorough and reasoned post, which must have taken a significant time to write.
as a fairly seasoned operator at LL in the hills of Scotland, I fail to see how just because you cannot see the hill tops, you are somehow negligent by maintaining 'VMC below'
John Purdey
Thank you for carefully reading my last post. I recommend that you also read flipster's posting above. Unfortunately, even if I accept that you and I will never agree, it is unseemly and impolite for you to ignore my question to you:
Or do you continue to support the finding of Gross Negligence purely out of loyalty and/or fraternity with Sir William and/or Sir John?
It is also impolite that, having carefully tried to answer your points, and at some length, you answer in such a cursory and arrogant manner.
With all good wishes,
Meadowbank
Last edited by meadowbank; 19th Mar 2009 at 15:39. Reason: missing word
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipster,
My apologies for a tardy reply but I can only plead the vagaries of "appointments" with Estate Agents and other interested parties regarding the sale of 2 of our houses.
You state that I am "persistant with the notion that not having breakfast indicates that Flt Lt Tapper was a persistant breaker of GASO's, ASI's etc."
I do no such thing - I merely point out that there is no record of him having breakfast that morning; a requirement for all Aircrew in the Orders and Instructions regulating the operation of STC Aircraft within the United Kingdom
That point assumes significance when you consider that ALL the other crew members complied with the laid down requirements in respect of having breakfast before embarking on flying duties.
Before we go on from here and I have to keep repeating myself in respect of other claims you have made - can you at least acknowledge that you agree with the above synopsis?
My apologies for a tardy reply but I can only plead the vagaries of "appointments" with Estate Agents and other interested parties regarding the sale of 2 of our houses.
You state that I am "persistant with the notion that not having breakfast indicates that Flt Lt Tapper was a persistant breaker of GASO's, ASI's etc."
I do no such thing - I merely point out that there is no record of him having breakfast that morning; a requirement for all Aircrew in the Orders and Instructions regulating the operation of STC Aircraft within the United Kingdom
That point assumes significance when you consider that ALL the other crew members complied with the laid down requirements in respect of having breakfast before embarking on flying duties.
Before we go on from here and I have to keep repeating myself in respect of other claims you have made - can you at least acknowledge that you agree with the above synopsis?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
But there is also no proof that he did not have breakfast in the crewroom, a practice that was common place at that time, so a bit of an impasse I would suggest, but I doubt you will concede that point.
But there is also no proof that he did not have breakfast in the crewroom, a practice that was common place at that time, so a bit of an impasse I would suggest, but I doubt you will concede that point.
I'm confused .. (not difficult I know) ... but just what difference does the fact that he did, or did not, or might, or might not, have eaten, or not, be it ham and eggs or a mars bar ... actually have to do with the right or wrong of the findings against the crew ??
The eventual findings broke the rules, in force at that time, and I thought that was the point ??
Methinks there is more smoke here than a WWII destroyer produced.
The eventual findings broke the rules, in force at that time, and I thought that was the point ??
Methinks there is more smoke here than a WWII destroyer produced.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OmegaV6
Very well said. There is far too much of a smokescreen on this thread, from people who (whatever their motives) want to distract us from the primary purpose of the thread. That is, of course, to overturn the verdict of gross negligence - for which there is no justification whatsoever.
Last edited by Vertico; 19th Mar 2009 at 23:35. Reason: Correcting typo
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou (K52)
On page 123 of this thread, in Jul 2006, I said to you:
You attempted to imply you HAD knowledge of the contents of Flt Lt Tapper's stomach.
Please clear this up for me, once and for all:
When, and what, had he eaten on the 2nd June 1994?
Thank you.
On page 123 of this thread, in Jul 2006, I said to you:
To categorically state, that he did not take breakfast. IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED FACTS
In order to support your assertion you would need to have seen information relating to the captains stomach contents.
In order to support your assertion you would need to have seen information relating to the captains stomach contents.
Please clear this up for me, once and for all:
When, and what, had he eaten on the 2nd June 1994?
Thank you.
The importance of food - a cautionary tale
A little tale. In 1998 the MoD(PE) Directors General started what was termed “coffee with the DG”, whereby ones DG (2 Star) would invite about half a dozen staff, of different ranks/grades, to sit with him, have a coffee and, without fear of retribution, speak openly about issues which concerned them. (But only one issue each).
When it was my turn, a few colleagues became tongue-tied in the presence of greatness, so there were 3 issues.
First, a Sqn Ldr expressed concern that experienced staffs were being ignored on Nimrod RMPA and the long-predicted, and yet only recently announced, 4 year slip was nothing compared to what was to come.
Secondly, I got on my hobby horse and noted that senior staffs continued to condone the deliberate waste of money, while I was being denied funds to attain and maintain airworthiness; while waving the audit report which backed me up.
Lastly, a young lady took her life in her hands by complaining that our staff canteen charged more for a banana than Sainsburys across the road.
The good Sqn Ldr and I were dismissed out of hand. “What slip?” and “Of no concern to MoD(PE)”, I clearly recall. But the case of a banana which cost 2p more received the full weight of his 2 stars, whereas we would have preferred him to concentrate on little things like Nimrod and Chinook Mk3 which, while simple enough jobs, were turning to rats in precisely the manner predicted a few years before.
There are some who are fixated about food (who end up too fat to pass their emergency egress drills), and there are those whose limitations are exposed by an inability to grasp what is important.
When it was my turn, a few colleagues became tongue-tied in the presence of greatness, so there were 3 issues.
First, a Sqn Ldr expressed concern that experienced staffs were being ignored on Nimrod RMPA and the long-predicted, and yet only recently announced, 4 year slip was nothing compared to what was to come.
Secondly, I got on my hobby horse and noted that senior staffs continued to condone the deliberate waste of money, while I was being denied funds to attain and maintain airworthiness; while waving the audit report which backed me up.
Lastly, a young lady took her life in her hands by complaining that our staff canteen charged more for a banana than Sainsburys across the road.
The good Sqn Ldr and I were dismissed out of hand. “What slip?” and “Of no concern to MoD(PE)”, I clearly recall. But the case of a banana which cost 2p more received the full weight of his 2 stars, whereas we would have preferred him to concentrate on little things like Nimrod and Chinook Mk3 which, while simple enough jobs, were turning to rats in precisely the manner predicted a few years before.
There are some who are fixated about food (who end up too fat to pass their emergency egress drills), and there are those whose limitations are exposed by an inability to grasp what is important.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the jackels are gathering again I would merely point out that immediately after the first formal briefing of the AOC by the BOI (as opposed to the initial signal) Stn Cdrs were instructed to ensure that crews partook of breakfast before flying. At Northolt, where Government Ministers always wanted to depart at 0800 hrs to impress the PM, a system was instigated whereby crews were served breakfast by In-Flight Catering after Met Brief & Flt Planning. Coincidence? Non!!
PS
Has anyone asked Lt K what the turning point was on the Mull? The old adage "Don't assume - CHECK" could perhaps have averted the tragedy.
PS
Has anyone asked Lt K what the turning point was on the Mull? The old adage "Don't assume - CHECK" could perhaps have averted the tragedy.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully RAF Aldergrove already had a perfectly suitable system in place with the provision of in flight rations, available 24/7 in the always well stocked crewrooms of 72 and 230 Sqn's 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
Jackels (sic)?
Non!!
Simply highlighting the fact that you do not know whether Flt Lt Tapper had breakfast or not. His only misfortune was that nobody could say for certain that they witnessed it!
You simply use this innuendo to smear his reputation. Are you really that desperate?
We also shouldn't overlook the fact that two and a half years ago you made a claim which you now are unable to support!
Kind regards.
Jackels (sic)?
Non!!
Simply highlighting the fact that you do not know whether Flt Lt Tapper had breakfast or not. His only misfortune was that nobody could say for certain that they witnessed it!
You simply use this innuendo to smear his reputation. Are you really that desperate?
We also shouldn't overlook the fact that two and a half years ago you made a claim which you now are unable to support!
Kind regards.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
1.The evidence was compelling enough for the AOC to instigate measures to ensure that personnel had breakfast prior to flying.
2. If Flt Lt Tapper had partaken of breakfast in the Mess then both he and Flt Lt Cook could have gone to Met Brief together - standard practice for Flight Deck Crew in all my flying appointments.
3. There was also no record of any in-flight meals being ordered - hence the comment in the BOI that they were unlikely to have had anything to eat "other than a few biscuits" during the first sortie.
4. Nobody has yet explained (in the light of all the posts on this thread regarding Flt Lts Tapper & Cook "taking over" the VIP task from Lt K and Flt Lt T) why the 2 experienced Chinook Pilots flew the routine in -theatre Army support tasks with the inexperienced (on type) Lt K and his Nav programmed to fly the "VIP Task".
5. Finally, nobody has explained (again in the light of the posts on this and previous threads) how it came about that the BOI concluded that Tapper & Cook flew the fatal sortie because detatchment crews preferred to operate on a "day on - day off" basis. I wonder where that misleading information came from?
1.The evidence was compelling enough for the AOC to instigate measures to ensure that personnel had breakfast prior to flying.
2. If Flt Lt Tapper had partaken of breakfast in the Mess then both he and Flt Lt Cook could have gone to Met Brief together - standard practice for Flight Deck Crew in all my flying appointments.
3. There was also no record of any in-flight meals being ordered - hence the comment in the BOI that they were unlikely to have had anything to eat "other than a few biscuits" during the first sortie.
4. Nobody has yet explained (in the light of all the posts on this thread regarding Flt Lts Tapper & Cook "taking over" the VIP task from Lt K and Flt Lt T) why the 2 experienced Chinook Pilots flew the routine in -theatre Army support tasks with the inexperienced (on type) Lt K and his Nav programmed to fly the "VIP Task".
5. Finally, nobody has explained (again in the light of the posts on this and previous threads) how it came about that the BOI concluded that Tapper & Cook flew the fatal sortie because detatchment crews preferred to operate on a "day on - day off" basis. I wonder where that misleading information came from?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz
"As the jackels are gathering again I would merely point out that immediately after the first formal briefing of the AOC by the BOI (as opposed to the initial signal) Stn Cdrs were instructed to ensure that crews partook of breakfast before flying. At Northolt, where Government Ministers always wanted to depart at 0800 hrs to impress the PM, a system was instigated whereby crews were served breakfast by In-Flight Catering after Met Brief & Flt Planning. Coincidence? Non!!"
It does rather seem to me from the above that prior to this unfortunate incident you and the rest of the aircrew at RAF Northholt were all guilty of
"knowingly flouted HQ STC Air Staff Instructions and Group Air Staff Orders whilst on Active Service." your words Sir, not mine.
The difference between Northolt and Aldergrove is that prior to that fateful day on both 72 and 230 Sqn's in flight rations were in plentiful supply and available 24/7. To me it suggests that adherence to the relevant orders with regards to catering was common place in Ireland but was, by your own admission woefully inadequate at Northolt, shame on you for your hypocrisy.
"As the jackels are gathering again I would merely point out that immediately after the first formal briefing of the AOC by the BOI (as opposed to the initial signal) Stn Cdrs were instructed to ensure that crews partook of breakfast before flying. At Northolt, where Government Ministers always wanted to depart at 0800 hrs to impress the PM, a system was instigated whereby crews were served breakfast by In-Flight Catering after Met Brief & Flt Planning. Coincidence? Non!!"
It does rather seem to me from the above that prior to this unfortunate incident you and the rest of the aircrew at RAF Northholt were all guilty of
"knowingly flouted HQ STC Air Staff Instructions and Group Air Staff Orders whilst on Active Service." your words Sir, not mine.
The difference between Northolt and Aldergrove is that prior to that fateful day on both 72 and 230 Sqn's in flight rations were in plentiful supply and available 24/7. To me it suggests that adherence to the relevant orders with regards to catering was common place in Ireland but was, by your own admission woefully inadequate at Northolt, shame on you for your hypocrisy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
Just so we can put this one completely to bed then:
In Jul 06 (on p123 of this thread) When you said you had seen evidence of Flt Lt Tapper's stomach contents, you were in fact 'mistaken'?
Is that correct?
In fact you do not know what he had eaten, nor when?
Is that also correct?
Very many thanks.
TR
Just so we can put this one completely to bed then:
In Jul 06 (on p123 of this thread) When you said you had seen evidence of Flt Lt Tapper's stomach contents, you were in fact 'mistaken'?
Is that correct?
In fact you do not know what he had eaten, nor when?
Is that also correct?
Very many thanks.
TR
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
Just a point of order, they would have struggled to go to met brief together. There wasn't a met brief to go to, you self briefed because everyone had a different reporting time. For longer flights, it was normal that 1 crew member went over for a face to face brief with the met man. Usually but not always the captain.
In flight meals?? You are having a laugh of course. The squadron claimed money and bought flying rations that were kept in the crewroom. The crew sat and ate those very rations before the very flight. At the same table I was sat on, so I can confirm they did eat. If you need that under oath, I can comply if required.
In flight meals?? You are having a laugh of course. The squadron claimed money and bought flying rations that were kept in the crewroom. The crew sat and ate those very rations before the very flight. At the same table I was sat on, so I can confirm they did eat. If you need that under oath, I can comply if required.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
"In flight meals?? You are having a laugh of course. The squadron claimed money and bought flying rations that were kept in the crewroom. The crew sat and ate those very rations before the very flight. At the same table I was sat on, so I can confirm they did eat. If you need that under oath, I can comply if required."
Care to comment?
It seems Northolt aircrew, who were charged with carrying the most important people in the UK including the very person I declared my allegiance to in 1974, serially flouted the requirement to eat breakfast, hence the introduction of "a system was instigated whereby crews were served breakfast by In-Flight Catering"
By comparison the system that had been in place for as long as I can remember at RAF Aldergrove not only more than satisfied the rules and regs you are attempting to hang this crew out to dry with but JT's post above completely shreds any hint of credibility you may have had with regards to this subject and I look forward to your response.
"In flight meals?? You are having a laugh of course. The squadron claimed money and bought flying rations that were kept in the crewroom. The crew sat and ate those very rations before the very flight. At the same table I was sat on, so I can confirm they did eat. If you need that under oath, I can comply if required."
Care to comment?
It seems Northolt aircrew, who were charged with carrying the most important people in the UK including the very person I declared my allegiance to in 1974, serially flouted the requirement to eat breakfast, hence the introduction of "a system was instigated whereby crews were served breakfast by In-Flight Catering"
By comparison the system that had been in place for as long as I can remember at RAF Aldergrove not only more than satisfied the rules and regs you are attempting to hang this crew out to dry with but JT's post above completely shreds any hint of credibility you may have had with regards to this subject and I look forward to your response.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on, gentlemen, this is getting silly. We should remain above petty point-scoring if we wish the thread and the campaign to continue to be taken seriously. When we branch out into semi-private feuds about meal arrangements and the like we start to sound like more like schoolboys in the playground than professional aviators.
Boslandew
Boslandew