Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Just a numbered other
Airfix,
Your view is as valid as any other. You will know that not one of us here holds that it is impossible that the pilots were negligent. We simply ask that it be proved to the standard required that they were.
If you have indeed read everything available, then how can you assert that the helicopter should have been climbed (presumably to SALT). To the best of the pilots' knowlede, the +4 deg C isotherm (Chinook Mk2 limit) was at 2500', well below SALT.
Your view is as valid as any other. You will know that not one of us here holds that it is impossible that the pilots were negligent. We simply ask that it be proved to the standard required that they were.
If you have indeed read everything available, then how can you assert that the helicopter should have been climbed (presumably to SALT). To the best of the pilots' knowlede, the +4 deg C isotherm (Chinook Mk2 limit) was at 2500', well below SALT.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point indeed,
Just highlights what one misses whilst reading these reports! Apologies for my previous sweeping statement. It was not as well founded as I thought - either side presents a very different outlook on events...
Just highlights what one misses whilst reading these reports! Apologies for my previous sweeping statement. It was not as well founded as I thought - either side presents a very different outlook on events...
Apro po Brian Day's descriptions: I thought the terms used by BOIs were "culpable negligence" and "excuseable negligence".
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airfix
Glad to see you’re widely read. Sorry it does take more than two hours; but it’s worth it. I think you’ll agree that the discussion is no longer about flying. It all boils down to legal questions about -
The standard of proof - ‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’ – a very high standard; and
Evidence – distinguishing between fact and presumption, even though it is very convincing presumption.
It is not necessary to be convinced that the pilots could do no wrong. This point of view is appreciated but you don't have to hold this view in order to agree that the BoI was wrong.
On questions of law I bow to Law Lords every time.
MHP
Glad to see you’re widely read. Sorry it does take more than two hours; but it’s worth it. I think you’ll agree that the discussion is no longer about flying. It all boils down to legal questions about -
The standard of proof - ‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’ – a very high standard; and
Evidence – distinguishing between fact and presumption, even though it is very convincing presumption.
It is not necessary to be convinced that the pilots could do no wrong. This point of view is appreciated but you don't have to hold this view in order to agree that the BoI was wrong.
On questions of law I bow to Law Lords every time.
MHP
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lancashire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is quite keen to "prove" whether or not the crew could have safely climbed to safety altitude. Most of us who have spent many hours in cloud know that it is a very variable and unpredictable phenomenon. Cloud type, water droplet size, terrain mixing, aircraft speed, blade angles, inlet design etc etc etc, would all have had an effect on how that particular aircraft would have iced up on that particular occasion. Had they attempted to climb (anyone established they didn't?), they could have hit severe iceing at 500', 10000' or not at all. 1.98 degree lapse rates only occur in the theoetical world.
A copy of a letter from Adam Ingram to my local MP was forwarded to me today by him. It reads:
"Dear (MP),
Thank you for your letter of 22 July to Geoff Hoon enclosing one from your constituent (BEagle) about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
(BEagle) asks about the further work that we have commissioned from Boeing, and I should explain that although the Mull Board of Inquiry finding did not rely on Boeing's work, it was important that we sought clarification from the Company about the Chinook Select Committee's comments. We also asked Boeing to review their original flight profile analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.
Copies of this work, together with the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, were placed in the Library of both Houses on Monday 22 July 2002. This should allow ample time for appropriate scrutiny before the debate in the House of Lords after the Summer Recess.
On the matter of Boeing's further work, I would also stress that such simulations are an analysis tool, looking at probabilities and likelihood. Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction; rather it has provided greater understanding of the aircraft's capabilities and constraints. In doing so, it seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses which have been put forward to explain the crash.
Yours aye
AI"
Well. Let me think for a moment. "probabilities and likelihood", "Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction", "seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses"..................
Doesn't sound as though Boeing's simulation was able to rule out the possibility of a malfunction 'with no possible doubt whatsoever'.....
"Dear (MP),
Thank you for your letter of 22 July to Geoff Hoon enclosing one from your constituent (BEagle) about the Chinook accident on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. I am replying as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
(BEagle) asks about the further work that we have commissioned from Boeing, and I should explain that although the Mull Board of Inquiry finding did not rely on Boeing's work, it was important that we sought clarification from the Company about the Chinook Select Committee's comments. We also asked Boeing to review their original flight profile analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.
Copies of this work, together with the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, were placed in the Library of both Houses on Monday 22 July 2002. This should allow ample time for appropriate scrutiny before the debate in the House of Lords after the Summer Recess.
On the matter of Boeing's further work, I would also stress that such simulations are an analysis tool, looking at probabilities and likelihood. Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction; rather it has provided greater understanding of the aircraft's capabilities and constraints. In doing so, it seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses which have been put forward to explain the crash.
Yours aye
AI"
Well. Let me think for a moment. "probabilities and likelihood", "Boeing's work was not intended to produce a factual reconstruction", "seriously undermined some of the malfunction hypotheses"..................
Doesn't sound as though Boeing's simulation was able to rule out the possibility of a malfunction 'with no possible doubt whatsoever'.....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it worth posting that letter back to AI in the hope that he may read the self-contradictory drivel and see it for what it is?
These people are either on stuck transmit with no opportunity for self-monitoring or have cretins writing letters in their name.
These people are either on stuck transmit with no opportunity for self-monitoring or have cretins writing letters in their name.
Just a numbered other
yetti,
Not quite sure what your point is.... but agree with your post.
Further back in this (or previous) thread you'll see that these crews were also under threat of draconian measures if they exceeded the icing limits. It is not for us to prove whether or not they could have climbed, the doubt simply removes one of the concrete bastions upon which Wratten and Day damned Jon's and Rick's reputations.
Having attempted cloud penetration in icing conditions to avoid high ground in a Wessex, I can tell you it led to a frightening conclusion. (and this with a couple of UXBs underslung).
SH pilots do not include crystal balls in their flight kit, and can only fly to the forecast or actual conditions.
Ingram's letter beggars belief. How can one so lacking in logical thought hold such high office? As usual his woolly words just strengthen our case!
I would remind him:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Not quite sure what your point is.... but agree with your post.
Further back in this (or previous) thread you'll see that these crews were also under threat of draconian measures if they exceeded the icing limits. It is not for us to prove whether or not they could have climbed, the doubt simply removes one of the concrete bastions upon which Wratten and Day damned Jon's and Rick's reputations.
Having attempted cloud penetration in icing conditions to avoid high ground in a Wessex, I can tell you it led to a frightening conclusion. (and this with a couple of UXBs underslung).
SH pilots do not include crystal balls in their flight kit, and can only fly to the forecast or actual conditions.
Ingram's letter beggars belief. How can one so lacking in logical thought hold such high office? As usual his woolly words just strengthen our case!
I would remind him:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Forres, Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now read the HoL report I am inclined to agree with AirfixPilot that pressonitis was a factor. The cloud base crossing the North Channel must have been lower than they were expecting. The report mentions a visibility of less than 50 metres at the lighthouse. This means the cloud base must have been less than 400 FT. If the Chinook was at around the same height it would have been very difficult to see anything.
The statement from the yachtsman eye witness must be taken with a pinch of salt - he saw the Chinook and the Mull so they must have seen it as well. What about the old chestnut of airbourne flight visibility.
Given the poorer weather they encountered and the problems of climbing into potential icing conditions, turning back might have been a better choice but they had the passnegers!!!!
At the end of the day though all this is supposition and with the lack of hard evidence I also find it incredible that to BoI came to such a dogmatic conclusion.
The statement from the yachtsman eye witness must be taken with a pinch of salt - he saw the Chinook and the Mull so they must have seen it as well. What about the old chestnut of airbourne flight visibility.
Given the poorer weather they encountered and the problems of climbing into potential icing conditions, turning back might have been a better choice but they had the passnegers!!!!
At the end of the day though all this is supposition and with the lack of hard evidence I also find it incredible that to BoI came to such a dogmatic conclusion.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lancashire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal, Wratten in one of his earlier statements, made it clear that in his opinion, given the forecast surface temperature, and (his) assessment of SALT, a climb to this SALT was a viable option. We can never be sure if some sort of climb was not attempted, and temperature or iceing encountered, forced a descent and rethink? Probably not, but the iceing risk would have almost certainly been a major player if and when the pilots discussed their options. Did they discuss them? who knows. Did they climb and encounter iceing and if so did this force them to descend again? Who can say for certain. What we all lack is the crystal ball. What most of us accept that we can never know what exactly happened. It is only Wratten , Day and those at MOD who have the blinding arrogance to KNOW.
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
Hi everyone,
OK let's try and catch up.....
212 - I took the negligence terms and definition from the slides presented to the Lords Select Committee. Obviously what the Air Marshals used in order to help them reach their decision.
Ark - I remember your first post. And my somewhat curt reply
Beags - Your letter has the typical 'cut and paste' opener. This surely proves that the Ministers are simply repeating what is put to them by the MoD. Further proof that it is they who are calling the shots and not the elected Members. If you do write back pointing out his contradictions, ask if he is comfortable being told what to do by the unelected.
Oh I See - I think the record is stuck!
Millhampost - I'll see what I can do. If I can get it, I'll post. I seem to recall that Minister Hoon stated twice that it would be made available, so I don't see a problem.
03066 - Good recovery on your last sentence! That's the whole point of the campaign. There is a lack of hard evidence. Therefore the verdict can't stand.
Yetti - Mr Wratten was a fast jet driver. I just wonder if he was thinking through the process in that capacity, rather than rotory. I don't know.
I wasn't going to mention it as it sounds too much like the old 'blowing one's own trumpet'. But....... Flyer magazine kindly printed an article for me in their latest edition - My thanks to Ian Seager and his team.
What Ian has offered to do is send a copy of the magazine to every MP that has taken the trouble to sign the EDM, and to Ministers Blair and Hoon. (They got a free 'Irritating Sod' business card too
)
As a result of the article, I have recieved a number of new enquiries / support / comments.
So, not a trumpet blowing exercise, but a public thank you to all at Flyer.
Hope that's in order.
Keep going folks. They must know by now that we're not going away!!!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
OK let's try and catch up.....
212 - I took the negligence terms and definition from the slides presented to the Lords Select Committee. Obviously what the Air Marshals used in order to help them reach their decision.
Ark - I remember your first post. And my somewhat curt reply
Beags - Your letter has the typical 'cut and paste' opener. This surely proves that the Ministers are simply repeating what is put to them by the MoD. Further proof that it is they who are calling the shots and not the elected Members. If you do write back pointing out his contradictions, ask if he is comfortable being told what to do by the unelected.
Oh I See - I think the record is stuck!
Millhampost - I'll see what I can do. If I can get it, I'll post. I seem to recall that Minister Hoon stated twice that it would be made available, so I don't see a problem.
03066 - Good recovery on your last sentence! That's the whole point of the campaign. There is a lack of hard evidence. Therefore the verdict can't stand.
Yetti - Mr Wratten was a fast jet driver. I just wonder if he was thinking through the process in that capacity, rather than rotory. I don't know.
I wasn't going to mention it as it sounds too much like the old 'blowing one's own trumpet'. But....... Flyer magazine kindly printed an article for me in their latest edition - My thanks to Ian Seager and his team.
What Ian has offered to do is send a copy of the magazine to every MP that has taken the trouble to sign the EDM, and to Ministers Blair and Hoon. (They got a free 'Irritating Sod' business card too
)As a result of the article, I have recieved a number of new enquiries / support / comments.
So, not a trumpet blowing exercise, but a public thank you to all at Flyer.
Hope that's in order.
Keep going folks. They must know by now that we're not going away!!!
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Thanks for your thanks, but compared to you and many many other people I have done very little. My offer stands, should you want any updates, or requests for action published just let me know.
Best wishes
Ian
Thanks for your thanks, but compared to you and many many other people I have done very little. My offer stands, should you want any updates, or requests for action published just let me know.
Best wishes
Ian
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PercyDragon This thread has served not only to debate the subject, but to keep hundreds of current & former RAF personnel (and countless others) informed on the progress of the campaign to clear Jon & Rick's names. The length of the debate serves to prove the point that there are a number of possible factors involved in the accident, a point which the MoD has yet to grasp. The thread will remain relevant until the end of the campaign.
Of course the decision to "put the thread to bed" rests with Danny & the Admins. We are fortunate to enjoy the support of PPRuNe, and the campaign is very grateful for that support.
Just as everyone is welcome to join the debate and contribute (regardless of their point of view), you equally have the right to leave the debate & stop reading the thread. Personally I think any debate is strengthened by diversity of opinion.
Of course the decision to "put the thread to bed" rests with Danny & the Admins. We are fortunate to enjoy the support of PPRuNe, and the campaign is very grateful for that support.
Just as everyone is welcome to join the debate and contribute (regardless of their point of view), you equally have the right to leave the debate & stop reading the thread. Personally I think any debate is strengthened by diversity of opinion.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Percy
Afraid you, and the handful who see things your way, are going to lose?
Surely, even you must accept the the AM's are going to lose, perhaps not today, not tomorrow, but someday.
Afraid you, and the handful who see things your way, are going to lose?
Surely, even you must accept the the AM's are going to lose, perhaps not today, not tomorrow, but someday.
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
Thanks for the support PPRuNe Pop.
Hi Percy. Long time no post.
I have to agree that it is time to put this thread to bed. As soon as justice is done. After all, over eight years is an absolute disgrace!
Could I ask if you'd be willing to write to your MP and ask if they would sign EDM 829?
Surely even you can't be happy with the MoD being unanswerable to Parliament.
Go on........ You know you want to really.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Hi Percy. Long time no post.
I have to agree that it is time to put this thread to bed. As soon as justice is done. After all, over eight years is an absolute disgrace!
Could I ask if you'd be willing to write to your MP and ask if they would sign EDM 829?
Surely even you can't be happy with the MoD being unanswerable to Parliament.
Go on........ You know you want to really.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook