Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Walter, you addressed me in Post #4216. Apologies for the late response, it has been a busy Easter at Chateau Chug!. Your comment re airworthiness to my quote that:
Was:
To tucumseh above, you say:
all of which makes me wonder if airworthiness means different things to you than it does to me. Admittedly it can cover a multitude of sins (literally in the case of the MOD) but at its worst, unairworthiness can mean the spontaneous explosion of an aircraft having just conducted a routine as authorised in the RTS (eg Nimrod). Wikipedia (hardly an authority but convenient for our purpose) quotes JSP553, Military Airworthiness Regulations (2006) Edition 1 Change 5 in defining Airworthiness as:
Airworthiness provision by the Airworthiness Authority is not a matter of pragmatism but a legal requirement. It is certainly not merely a matter of comparative performance or responsiveness between similar aircraft as you seem to suggest. As regards aircraft “purchased from overseas”, it might well be pragmatic to piggy back on the airworthiness authority of the manufacturing nation (eg the USA) when buying “off the shelf” and no doubt smaller Air Forces and their Airworthiness Authorities do just that. The problem with the Brits is that we love to tinker. We certainly did so with the RAF’s C-130K’s as well as here with the Chinook Mk2. “Change this, fit that, substitute the other” ensures numerous airworthiness implications. Overlay that with a culture of only paying lip service to airworthiness, ie signing it off without enforcing it, and you have a disaster in the making. That is the lack of Duty of Care of which tucumseh speaks. We don’t know why ZD576 crashed. We do know that as a type its airworthiness was heavily compromised, and as an individual airframe it had an alarming history of malfunction in its short life. Gross Negligence cannot be proved against the pilots. It can and should be proved against the MOD, irrespective of the cause of this tragedy.
This is a story of the intentional dismemberment of the airworthiness protection of the UK Military Airfleet.
Perhaps this is a pragmatic approach when a complex aircraft is purchased from overseas
The only merit in the continuance of the airworthiness debate in this instance is if you think a better performing Chinook could have helped them in a desperate evasive manoeuvre
The ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown
This definition applies equally to civil and military aircraft.
This definition applies equally to civil and military aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster
<<so its not as simple as it sounds, is it!? >>
Well it's simpler than you seem to be making it appear – the area of interest is the low hill that is the Mull which is isolated on their route by many miles before and after – and in that area icing considerations would not have precluded the option of going up to SALT – it is that simple.
The Mull is an isolated low hill that on that day, as it so often does with the prevailing wind in Summer, was generating local orographic cloud and upslope mist right on the landmass such that the Mull could be seen from a distance but topography and surface detail was masked so as to make distance off judgment very difficult visually.
If there was no need to approach it closely, it could have easily been avoided by turning away while remaining VFR over the sea – had for whatever reason they needed to go straight over it, icing was not a limitation.
<<so its not as simple as it sounds, is it!? >>
Well it's simpler than you seem to be making it appear – the area of interest is the low hill that is the Mull which is isolated on their route by many miles before and after – and in that area icing considerations would not have precluded the option of going up to SALT – it is that simple.
The Mull is an isolated low hill that on that day, as it so often does with the prevailing wind in Summer, was generating local orographic cloud and upslope mist right on the landmass such that the Mull could be seen from a distance but topography and surface detail was masked so as to make distance off judgment very difficult visually.
If there was no need to approach it closely, it could have easily been avoided by turning away while remaining VFR over the sea – had for whatever reason they needed to go straight over it, icing was not a limitation.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
There is no evidence whatsoever of airworthiness contributing to this crash – they were very close in while apparently in sufficient control to be changing waypoint and turning right – the final evasive manouevre seemed appropriate to sudden awareness of the ground etc with the a/c seemingly having started to respond to the large control demands – the attitude on impact seemed consistent with an a/c having been in a level attitude until these last inputs – the engines were found with matched power which would surely be unlikely if they had had any kind of control problems anytime in the last leg from waypoint change to impact– the track from waypoint change to impact was consistent with the course setting on the handling pilot's HorizSitInd which was the best approach towards that LZ. All this with altimeters set for a landing at the elev of that LZ. And with an exercise call sign. Etc. etc. Think about it.
There is no evidence whatsoever of airworthiness contributing to this crash – they were very close in while apparently in sufficient control to be changing waypoint and turning right – the final evasive manouevre seemed appropriate to sudden awareness of the ground etc with the a/c seemingly having started to respond to the large control demands – the attitude on impact seemed consistent with an a/c having been in a level attitude until these last inputs – the engines were found with matched power which would surely be unlikely if they had had any kind of control problems anytime in the last leg from waypoint change to impact– the track from waypoint change to impact was consistent with the course setting on the handling pilot's HorizSitInd which was the best approach towards that LZ. All this with altimeters set for a landing at the elev of that LZ. And with an exercise call sign. Etc. etc. Think about it.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter, I will not be drawn into detail, but I had a number of close friends on that flight. I can say, with absolute confidence, that there was no plan to land at any LZ on or near the Mull. Please let go of that particular hypothesis.
Walter Kennedy:
Which is exactly what both tuc and I have already said, though of course it might have done. But there is evidence that the aircraft was unairworthy, whereas there is no evidence that the pilots were trying to land at Mull, nor that they were Grossly Negligent. The former is your conjecture, the latter Wratten and Day's.
There is no evidence whatsoever of airworthiness contributing to this crash
Which is exactly what both tuc and I have already said, though of course it might have done. But there is evidence that the aircraft was unairworthy, whereas there is no evidence that the pilots were trying to land at Mull, nor that they were Grossly Negligent. The former is your conjecture, the latter Wratten and Day's.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
You know I respect your perseverance in this matter but just to clear up another point concerning the weather, in my experience the cloud may well have been orographic in nature, but it certainly was not covering the Mull like a lump of cotton wool as depicted in your pictures. (again, respect for having made the effort).
Unlike others, I find your views and theories, while a bit whacky, still give us something to think about and stimulate debate)
Having just caught up on the thread it seems that Flipster hits the nail on the head every time.
Surely COCISS is exactly that?
ATB
SMK
You know I respect your perseverance in this matter but just to clear up another point concerning the weather, in my experience the cloud may well have been orographic in nature, but it certainly was not covering the Mull like a lump of cotton wool as depicted in your pictures. (again, respect for having made the effort).
Unlike others, I find your views and theories, while a bit whacky, still give us something to think about and stimulate debate)
Having just caught up on the thread it seems that Flipster hits the nail on the head every time.
Surely COCISS is exactly that?
ATB
SMK
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBG wrote:
Me too, and I can also say with certainty that there was no intent to land there.
The conspiracy theorists speculate on the fact that this was the top echelon of the Province's counter terrorist officers being flown by a Chinook SF crew. I can tell you that it was purely coincidental that a SF crew was on duty that day. The very same task was flown by a Chinook the year before with an 'ordinary' crew.
Walter, I will not be drawn into detail, but I had a number of close friends on that flight. I can say, with absolute confidence, that there was no plan to land at any LZ on or near the Mull. Please let go of that particular hypothesis.
The conspiracy theorists speculate on the fact that this was the top echelon of the Province's counter terrorist officers being flown by a Chinook SF crew. I can tell you that it was purely coincidental that a SF crew was on duty that day. The very same task was flown by a Chinook the year before with an 'ordinary' crew.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walt,
WRT your hypothesis about an unplanned LZ, I think that others have clearly appraised you of your lack of accuracy and realism but I too am unnerved by the Rad Alt settings. Your slant on this, while you are entitled to it is, of course, supposition. Nonetheless, your appreciation of Safety Alt local to the Mull is not the whole story. Any professional crew would, if forced to abort from low-level, climb to the appropriate safety alt for the rest of the sortie - not just that around the Mull. That is, they would climb to about 6000 ft (probably more) - not just for SAlt considerations but also for such things as radar coverage, R/T reception from Scottish mil and flying the correct Quadrantal Altitude or Flight Level. If that meant they would be flying in icing conditions above the 0 deg isotherm and against the CA RTS, then they would have been pre-disposed to avoiding such a scenario and so want to remain at LL. It is a very 'human' factor that the BOI seemed to gloss over.
flipster
WRT your hypothesis about an unplanned LZ, I think that others have clearly appraised you of your lack of accuracy and realism but I too am unnerved by the Rad Alt settings. Your slant on this, while you are entitled to it is, of course, supposition. Nonetheless, your appreciation of Safety Alt local to the Mull is not the whole story. Any professional crew would, if forced to abort from low-level, climb to the appropriate safety alt for the rest of the sortie - not just that around the Mull. That is, they would climb to about 6000 ft (probably more) - not just for SAlt considerations but also for such things as radar coverage, R/T reception from Scottish mil and flying the correct Quadrantal Altitude or Flight Level. If that meant they would be flying in icing conditions above the 0 deg isotherm and against the CA RTS, then they would have been pre-disposed to avoiding such a scenario and so want to remain at LL. It is a very 'human' factor that the BOI seemed to gloss over.
flipster
Last edited by flipster; 16th Apr 2009 at 10:51.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT2
Sorry, you'll have to be a bit more specific - I did try a search but my computer skills weren't up to the job and I couldn't find owt by looking back at the first 15 pages and ran out of time. I assume that the RA settings have been discussed by the cognoscenti before - if so, why does Walt keep on about an unplanned/unbriefed/unauth'd LZ? Would the RA settings have been markedly different? Please be gentle with me!
Sorry, you'll have to be a bit more specific - I did try a search but my computer skills weren't up to the job and I couldn't find owt by looking back at the first 15 pages and ran out of time. I assume that the RA settings have been discussed by the cognoscenti before - if so, why does Walt keep on about an unplanned/unbriefed/unauth'd LZ? Would the RA settings have been markedly different? Please be gentle with me!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto
You wrote: <<The Rad Alt settings were similar to any other helicopter in NI at the time. >>
As Caz posted above:
<< From the findings of the BOI as forwarded to the Stn Cdrs at Aldergrove and Odiham for their comments prior to submission to AOC 1Gp.
… para 45b
"the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident." ...
para 56
" The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch would could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground." >>
Common sense, never mind specific procedures, would suggest that the settings were inappropriate for their flight if it was just flying a route past the Mull. Are you saying that they may just not have bothered to set them appropriately? Would this not amount to negligence in view of the findings of the BOI as above?
And of course, no admission that the settings just happened to be right for an imminent landing – a more plausible reason for such an experienced crew to have set them so?
I have said it many times before – none of you have to buy the whole “conspiracy” theory – but at least honestly address those parameters that I have pointed out and we may at least advance our understanding of what may have happened.
At the very least, their change of heading consistent with an approach to a known LZ, slowing down (in terms of air speed), having the HP's baro alt set as QFE for the elevation of that LZ, and the RADALT alarm setting could show to yourselves an intent to land there for whatever reason (planned beforehand or due to some problem) – this would surely nullify the basis for the finding of negligence, which seems to be that they just blundered into the Mull somehow. The aforementioned factors should be recognised by yourselves as evidence of such an attempt to approach that LZ – this is surely a better tactic than “nothing can be proven” which has not yet achieved your limited objective or the airworthiness angle when there is no evidence of control or engine problems – it is surely worth consideration in parallel to your other tacks.
You wrote: <<The Rad Alt settings were similar to any other helicopter in NI at the time. >>
As Caz posted above:
<< From the findings of the BOI as forwarded to the Stn Cdrs at Aldergrove and Odiham for their comments prior to submission to AOC 1Gp.
… para 45b
"the Rad Alt setting procedures used by the crew were a contributory factor in the accident." ...
para 56
" The positioning of the Rad Alt bugs would have limited the crew to either a visual or a visual and audio warning at 69ft, depending on selection of the audio selector switch would could not be determined. This warning would have been too late, in the circumstances, to prevent impact with the ground." >>
Common sense, never mind specific procedures, would suggest that the settings were inappropriate for their flight if it was just flying a route past the Mull. Are you saying that they may just not have bothered to set them appropriately? Would this not amount to negligence in view of the findings of the BOI as above?
And of course, no admission that the settings just happened to be right for an imminent landing – a more plausible reason for such an experienced crew to have set them so?
I have said it many times before – none of you have to buy the whole “conspiracy” theory – but at least honestly address those parameters that I have pointed out and we may at least advance our understanding of what may have happened.
At the very least, their change of heading consistent with an approach to a known LZ, slowing down (in terms of air speed), having the HP's baro alt set as QFE for the elevation of that LZ, and the RADALT alarm setting could show to yourselves an intent to land there for whatever reason (planned beforehand or due to some problem) – this would surely nullify the basis for the finding of negligence, which seems to be that they just blundered into the Mull somehow. The aforementioned factors should be recognised by yourselves as evidence of such an attempt to approach that LZ – this is surely a better tactic than “nothing can be proven” which has not yet achieved your limited objective or the airworthiness angle when there is no evidence of control or engine problems – it is surely worth consideration in parallel to your other tacks.
Good post, Walter. You are quite right of course. All of us have something to contribute to this debate, with the possible exception of those who broadcast to "You idiots". As long as we don't expect others to take all our pet theories on board, we deserve to be listened to. There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big. Nothing less would account for the bizarre position that both the RAF High Command and the MOD have adopted, both untenable and unshared by the other national institutions. The truth will eventually come out, it always does. We would do better to work towards that united rather than divided. Thank you, a lesson learned!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Chugalug2. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, and among other things we have seen the suggestion that the IRA lured the crew into the hillside with a false beacon, then the other day it was suggested that perhaps the crew were distracted by a fly in the cockpit; but we have not, as far as I can recall, heard state-sponsored murder mentioned. Please keep the thread up to date on progress with this one. With all good wishes, JP
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
Mr Purdey,
can we agree on the points I raised in post 4242?
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
can we agree on the points I raised in post 4242?
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Brian Dixon. My question was a straightforward, single-subject one, and it was adrdessed to Ark Royal. It was not intended to start your carousel whirling again. and with great respect I decline your invitation to go over this same ground again. With all good wishes, JP
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
That will be a "No", then. 
How interesting.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
How interesting.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
It has nothing to do with declining etc, it's simply that he dare not go anywhere near your simple questions at post 4242 as to do so would blow his argument right out of the water.
It's often the easier questions that are the toughest to answer
It has nothing to do with declining etc, it's simply that he dare not go anywhere near your simple questions at post 4242 as to do so would blow his argument right out of the water.
It's often the easier questions that are the toughest to answer
Just a numbered other
." Forget about assumed tracks and so on, but can we also agree that if the a/c had been about 500 yds to the left, (confusion between lighthouse compound and fog signal compound?- just a theory) it would have cleared the hill ahead with around 200 ft to spare, and no-one would then ever have known about this most grievous breach of airmanship ie flying blind over hills.
If you are suggesting that the crew were actually intending to rely on TANS to take them in IMC to an accuracy of 500 yds within 200ft of terrain then you are indeed suggesting reckless folly and gross negligence.
I find such a plan quite incredible. Ludicrous.
You also say:
Entirely agree your "Why the chinook continued more or less straight into the Mull, instead of turning left to follow the coast below the cloud will never be known without doubt."
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayteeto
"The Rad Alt settings were similar to any other helicopter in NI at the time."
They crashed in Scotland - what may have been deemed suitable for tasks in the Province would not necessarily have been suitable when coasting in towards the cloud covered high ground of the Mull.
Ark Royal
Nice to see that you are still around.
"The Rad Alt settings were similar to any other helicopter in NI at the time."
They crashed in Scotland - what may have been deemed suitable for tasks in the Province would not necessarily have been suitable when coasting in towards the cloud covered high ground of the Mull.
Ark Royal
Nice to see that you are still around.
Radar Altimeter
I bow to aircrew expertise so don't comment on the Rad Alt settings, but did anyone get to the bottom of the design defect in the Rad Alt noted by the AAIB?
MoD can't say if it was ever investigated or corrected (presumably they no longer speak to the Design Authority or AAIB, which would explain much!!). So, we still have a contradiction whereby;
(a) On the basis of unvalidated testing of the TANS unit, in isolation, in unrepresentative conditions, MoD stated the entire Nav System was both serviceable and accurate (two different things), and,
(b) They acknowledge a design defect in the Rad Alt, part of the aforementioned Nav System which fed TANS.
I'm not suggesting Nav System error as the cause (although I know it was suspected early on); rather I'm noting, again, one of many examples whereby MoD did not meet their legal obligations, and their flat refusal to discuss the issue. When information such as this is hidden/withheld/destroyed, one should always question motive.
MoD can't say if it was ever investigated or corrected (presumably they no longer speak to the Design Authority or AAIB, which would explain much!!). So, we still have a contradiction whereby;
(a) On the basis of unvalidated testing of the TANS unit, in isolation, in unrepresentative conditions, MoD stated the entire Nav System was both serviceable and accurate (two different things), and,
(b) They acknowledge a design defect in the Rad Alt, part of the aforementioned Nav System which fed TANS.
I'm not suggesting Nav System error as the cause (although I know it was suspected early on); rather I'm noting, again, one of many examples whereby MoD did not meet their legal obligations, and their flat refusal to discuss the issue. When information such as this is hidden/withheld/destroyed, one should always question motive.
