Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I am a little wary of people who quote dictionary definitions to make themselves look over-clever - as if owning a dictionary makes you somehow superior. Sadly, you seem to be confirming our opinions of your inflexibility of thought.
Nonetheless, I will take the bait......
Daft - foolish, crazy (Collins)
But even that is a bit harsh as I am trying to avoid becoming too personally insulting. You are obviously an intelligent person but I suspect, someone who is very set in their ways, who avoids new experiences and different ways of thinking and living life. When was the last time you did something really different and fun?
Maybe 'blinkered' would be a more appropriate adjective to describe your attitude and the thinking you appear to exhibit? For now, however, we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Nonetheless, I meant what I said about casting off the 'chains of self-deceit'. You owe it yourself to expand your horizons and be honest with yourself; everyone deserves that much and you will feel so much better and contented for doing so.
Of course, its totally your choice and I won't press - but from here it still looks as if you haven't yet accepted citizenship of the human-race. You are lucky to have that choice - some have had that option taken away. Good luck whichever way you go.
Back to thread.
I am a little wary of people who quote dictionary definitions to make themselves look over-clever - as if owning a dictionary makes you somehow superior. Sadly, you seem to be confirming our opinions of your inflexibility of thought.
Nonetheless, I will take the bait......
Daft - foolish, crazy (Collins)
But even that is a bit harsh as I am trying to avoid becoming too personally insulting. You are obviously an intelligent person but I suspect, someone who is very set in their ways, who avoids new experiences and different ways of thinking and living life. When was the last time you did something really different and fun?
Maybe 'blinkered' would be a more appropriate adjective to describe your attitude and the thinking you appear to exhibit? For now, however, we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Nonetheless, I meant what I said about casting off the 'chains of self-deceit'. You owe it yourself to expand your horizons and be honest with yourself; everyone deserves that much and you will feel so much better and contented for doing so.
Of course, its totally your choice and I won't press - but from here it still looks as if you haven't yet accepted citizenship of the human-race. You are lucky to have that choice - some have had that option taken away. Good luck whichever way you go.
Back to thread.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipster
thanks for a reasonable reply but I must make the following comments:
<<It may come as a suprise to you that the landing speed for a helo is not 135-150 kts!>>
Come on, I respectfully refer you to Boeing's “Analysis of Available Data” (Mitchel): a decent distance/time analysis had it that they must have maintained their cruise speed of 135kts (TAS) for much of the route to the point of waypoint change – the author used the best available data for wind to do this;
again using the wind data that showed a marked increase as the shoreline approached, he concluded that the TAS had reduced significantly over the last leg from waypoint change to the point of impact and that they had turned slightly to the right at the point of waypoint change – he stated that the increased wind on that leg masked the slowing down such that the average ground speed over that leg had remained the same as that over the bulk of the route;
I suggest that the matched power of the engines indicated a steady contolled state and the power level as deduced from data after the crash should be consistent with slowing down thus reinforcing the Boeing analysis's conclusion.
So they had started to slow down.
There was a known LZ ahead the optimum approach for being 035 mag (at the time) which was the heading from the position of waypoint change (and their right turn) to impact;
the handling pilot's baro alt subscale setting as found was such as to give a QFE at the elevation of that LZ and one of the RADALT warnings was set at a minimum consistent with an imminent landing in marginal conditions (neither of these settings made any sense other than for such a landing);
had they somehow been misled as to their range to that LZ by, say, ˝ a mile and consequently would have thought themselves a bit further out to sea and so not expecting the tail wind to pick up so soon, would it have been reasonable that they thought they had enough time to get their speed down enough for a landing there? (I have asked this question in other ways before but no one has volunteered a reasonable distance for a Chinook to slow down from cruise to final flare for a landing.)
The earlier PRC112 available at that time gave very accurate range (as a UHF DME) and approximate bearing – had they been demonstrating such equipment, their intentions could have been as follows:
an operator on the LZ with a PRC112 could also communicate through the voice channel with the pilot (if the pilot was listening on UHF guard – and was not the HP's intercom found selected to this?) and so able to complement the range and bearing with voice guidance/encouragement;
by cruising up 027 until they had a bearing of 035 (best approach for this site) then turning they should have been heading directly at the position of waypoint A which was the middle of the edge of that LZ – that the HP's HSI course selector was found on 035 supports this;
and they should have had an accurate range.
In the event, they did turn onto 035 at the position of waypoint change (the track from there to impact was 035) but it was too early and they did not slow down fast enough – with reference to the annotated maps I posted here some time ago, had an operator who was supposed to have been at the LZ actually been ˝ a mile or so up the hill, the geometry explains the early arrival at 035 and the apparent misjudgment of range to that LZ – Flt Lt Tapper had misgivings that he had voiced over the accuracy of the SuperTANS and, being up to date on nav systems, would have prefered to believe in the intrinsically accurate PRC112 system in the case of a contradiction – and there would not have been any visual cues clear enough to over-ride the range readings they were getting until it was too late.
thanks for a reasonable reply but I must make the following comments:
<<It may come as a suprise to you that the landing speed for a helo is not 135-150 kts!>>
Come on, I respectfully refer you to Boeing's “Analysis of Available Data” (Mitchel): a decent distance/time analysis had it that they must have maintained their cruise speed of 135kts (TAS) for much of the route to the point of waypoint change – the author used the best available data for wind to do this;
again using the wind data that showed a marked increase as the shoreline approached, he concluded that the TAS had reduced significantly over the last leg from waypoint change to the point of impact and that they had turned slightly to the right at the point of waypoint change – he stated that the increased wind on that leg masked the slowing down such that the average ground speed over that leg had remained the same as that over the bulk of the route;
I suggest that the matched power of the engines indicated a steady contolled state and the power level as deduced from data after the crash should be consistent with slowing down thus reinforcing the Boeing analysis's conclusion.
So they had started to slow down.
There was a known LZ ahead the optimum approach for being 035 mag (at the time) which was the heading from the position of waypoint change (and their right turn) to impact;
the handling pilot's baro alt subscale setting as found was such as to give a QFE at the elevation of that LZ and one of the RADALT warnings was set at a minimum consistent with an imminent landing in marginal conditions (neither of these settings made any sense other than for such a landing);
had they somehow been misled as to their range to that LZ by, say, ˝ a mile and consequently would have thought themselves a bit further out to sea and so not expecting the tail wind to pick up so soon, would it have been reasonable that they thought they had enough time to get their speed down enough for a landing there? (I have asked this question in other ways before but no one has volunteered a reasonable distance for a Chinook to slow down from cruise to final flare for a landing.)
The earlier PRC112 available at that time gave very accurate range (as a UHF DME) and approximate bearing – had they been demonstrating such equipment, their intentions could have been as follows:
an operator on the LZ with a PRC112 could also communicate through the voice channel with the pilot (if the pilot was listening on UHF guard – and was not the HP's intercom found selected to this?) and so able to complement the range and bearing with voice guidance/encouragement;
by cruising up 027 until they had a bearing of 035 (best approach for this site) then turning they should have been heading directly at the position of waypoint A which was the middle of the edge of that LZ – that the HP's HSI course selector was found on 035 supports this;
and they should have had an accurate range.
In the event, they did turn onto 035 at the position of waypoint change (the track from there to impact was 035) but it was too early and they did not slow down fast enough – with reference to the annotated maps I posted here some time ago, had an operator who was supposed to have been at the LZ actually been ˝ a mile or so up the hill, the geometry explains the early arrival at 035 and the apparent misjudgment of range to that LZ – Flt Lt Tapper had misgivings that he had voiced over the accuracy of the SuperTANS and, being up to date on nav systems, would have prefered to believe in the intrinsically accurate PRC112 system in the case of a contradiction – and there would not have been any visual cues clear enough to over-ride the range readings they were getting until it was too late.
Walter,
Cows getting bigger and KG86 claim to know that there was no plan to land on the Mull that day Posts 4255 and 4258 respectively).
Would you do us the courtesy of explaining why you totally disregard what they say.
Cows getting bigger and KG86 claim to know that there was no plan to land on the Mull that day Posts 4255 and 4258 respectively).
Would you do us the courtesy of explaining why you totally disregard what they say.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipster,
I really think you have excelled yourself in your most recent attack on my character and intelligence.
"Someone who is very set in their ways, who avoids new experiences and different ways of living life."
Did you forget to look at the box which would have shown you that I live in France?
In my 31 years 1 month and 20 days in the RAF I never managed to visit a country whose name began with the letter "X" (because there isn't one) but I did manage every other letter - My apologies to other users whilst I satisfy this idiot.
Anguilla/Bahrain/Canada/Denmark/Estonia/Finland/Greenland)/Holland/Iran/ Jamaica/Kenya/Latvia/Malta/Norway/Oman/Portugal/ Qatar/Rhodesia (when it was Rhodesia!!)/Sweden/Trinidad/USSR (when it was the USSR) (PS Ever been to the Soviet Airbase at Kubinka - just outside Moscow?)/ Vagar/Wales/Yugoslavia (when it was Yugoslavia)/Zambia.
I think an apology is in order - perhaps others would agree.
PS Have you ever landed on a Swedish Motorway? I have - in an RAF aircraft to boot!!
PPS "Idiot" Chambers Dictionary -a "foolish or unwise person".
I really think you have excelled yourself in your most recent attack on my character and intelligence.
"Someone who is very set in their ways, who avoids new experiences and different ways of living life."
Did you forget to look at the box which would have shown you that I live in France?
In my 31 years 1 month and 20 days in the RAF I never managed to visit a country whose name began with the letter "X" (because there isn't one) but I did manage every other letter - My apologies to other users whilst I satisfy this idiot.
Anguilla/Bahrain/Canada/Denmark/Estonia/Finland/Greenland)/Holland/Iran/ Jamaica/Kenya/Latvia/Malta/Norway/Oman/Portugal/ Qatar/Rhodesia (when it was Rhodesia!!)/Sweden/Trinidad/USSR (when it was the USSR) (PS Ever been to the Soviet Airbase at Kubinka - just outside Moscow?)/ Vagar/Wales/Yugoslavia (when it was Yugoslavia)/Zambia.
I think an apology is in order - perhaps others would agree.
PS Have you ever landed on a Swedish Motorway? I have - in an RAF aircraft to boot!!
PPS "Idiot" Chambers Dictionary -a "foolish or unwise person".
Last edited by cazatou; 20th May 2009 at 21:00.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen.
Enough is enough. The personal attacks are becoming more and more distracting and take away the seriousness of this thread.
You no doubt out-rank me, but I'm retired so I don't give a damn when I say 'CUT IT OUT'.
Enough is enough. The personal attacks are becoming more and more distracting and take away the seriousness of this thread.
You no doubt out-rank me, but I'm retired so I don't give a damn when I say 'CUT IT OUT'.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulse 1
If they know anything about the planning they should let us all know.
And how they know.
And it would be a bonus if they had an alternative explanation for why so many parameters point to a landing or close pass.
And an admission that the LZ referred to was regularly used.
And why it was not mentioned in any of the inquiries that there was such an LZ in the area of the crash site (not the tiny pad near the lighthouse).
Perhaps then their comments would carry some weight.
If they know anything about the planning they should let us all know.
And how they know.
And it would be a bonus if they had an alternative explanation for why so many parameters point to a landing or close pass.
And an admission that the LZ referred to was regularly used.
And why it was not mentioned in any of the inquiries that there was such an LZ in the area of the crash site (not the tiny pad near the lighthouse).
Perhaps then their comments would carry some weight.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
In your 4442 you are making the mistake made by Wratten, Day and many others.
TANS was never designed to be an ADR. Whether it was crashworthy or not, any information gleaned from it after the crash can never be relied upon with absolute certainty.
Around 1998 the primary navaid on the C130 was the HINS /SKINS, ( I can,t remember its exact name), but it employed GPS / INS / ADS mix.
Over a period of a few weeks there were six major incident reports and errors of up to 60 nms generated. Indications on the kit were always that it was fully serviceable and the faults could never be reproduced on the ground. The information the crew were receiving from their TANS will never be known.
I can understand why Flipster and others get frustrated with you. Whenever you get a difficult question, you change tack. Do you sail?
1. Do you accept that the crew may have approched the Mull in legal VFR and that for the first part of the sortie there was no negligence.
2. In spite of the hypothesis by the Board, a climb to SALT may not have been a safe option.
In your 4442 you are making the mistake made by Wratten, Day and many others.
TANS was never designed to be an ADR. Whether it was crashworthy or not, any information gleaned from it after the crash can never be relied upon with absolute certainty.
Around 1998 the primary navaid on the C130 was the HINS /SKINS, ( I can,t remember its exact name), but it employed GPS / INS / ADS mix.
Over a period of a few weeks there were six major incident reports and errors of up to 60 nms generated. Indications on the kit were always that it was fully serviceable and the faults could never be reproduced on the ground. The information the crew were receiving from their TANS will never be known.
I can understand why Flipster and others get frustrated with you. Whenever you get a difficult question, you change tack. Do you sail?
1. Do you accept that the crew may have approched the Mull in legal VFR and that for the first part of the sortie there was no negligence.
2. In spite of the hypothesis by the Board, a climb to SALT may not have been a safe option.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information the crew were receiving from their TANS will never be known
True - but if they had done DR from take off to the coast they would not have hit it. A few basics seem to be missing here - like rule one - whatever else is happening someone has to FLY THE AIRCRAFT>
It would also be nice if some of you stopped being rude on this thread.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bas, I agree,
Being rude on here is not pleasant.
You assume the basics: not the fact that a a very competent crew were flying that day.
Do you know that that they did not back up the calcs?
and errr someone was flying the arcraft!
Being rude on here is not pleasant.
You assume the basics: not the fact that a a very competent crew were flying that day.
Do you know that that they did not back up the calcs?
and errr someone was flying the arcraft!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudeness comes in many forms and one of it's guises is that old chestnut assumption.
"but if they had done DR from take off to the coast they would not have hit it. A few basics seem to be missing here - like rule one - whatever else is happening someone has to FLY THE AIRCRAFT"
The assumption here, bearing in mind there is not one shred of evidence to support the notion, is that no one was.
"PS Have you ever landed on a Swedish Motorway? I have - in an RAF aircraft to boot!!"
The assumption here is that what he boasts about is as clever as and that the intended victim of his rather juvenile barb could not possibly have done anything quite so daring, but I suspect said victim has lived life quite a bit closer to the edge than the man from Provence gives him credit for
"but if they had done DR from take off to the coast they would not have hit it. A few basics seem to be missing here - like rule one - whatever else is happening someone has to FLY THE AIRCRAFT"
The assumption here, bearing in mind there is not one shred of evidence to support the notion, is that no one was.
"PS Have you ever landed on a Swedish Motorway? I have - in an RAF aircraft to boot!!"
The assumption here is that what he boasts about is as clever as and that the intended victim of his rather juvenile barb could not possibly have done anything quite so daring, but I suspect said victim has lived life quite a bit closer to the edge than the man from Provence gives him credit for
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winch-control
"A very competent crew were flying that day"
Go to the VC10 website and read the article re-produced from an Air Clues report in 1969 regarding the RAF VC10 that missed America. I do not mean it missed the USA. No, it missed America - all of it: South America, Central America and North America and was finally located over Greenland heading North in a gentle turn to the right.
They were a "very competent crew" - the Nav had some 8000 hrs under his belt.
"A very competent crew were flying that day"
Go to the VC10 website and read the article re-produced from an Air Clues report in 1969 regarding the RAF VC10 that missed America. I do not mean it missed the USA. No, it missed America - all of it: South America, Central America and North America and was finally located over Greenland heading North in a gentle turn to the right.
They were a "very competent crew" - the Nav had some 8000 hrs under his belt.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
Well, if two
were doing their job in an efficient and competant manner and one, you say, was flying the aircraft rather than both heads in the cockpit worrying about some unproven problem, who was not competant at DR nav and who was not looking out of the window? They certainly hit the hill.That is a fact.
And the clues in "perhaps", but I guess you already know that Sir
competent crew
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir,
"Well, if two competent crew were doing their job in an efficient and competant manner and one, you say, was flying the aircraft rather than both heads in the cockpit worrying about some unproven problem, who was not competant at DR nav and who was not looking out of the window?"
Again the clue is in the if, but I guess you knew that already.
"They certainly hit the hill.That is a fact." now that is an undeniable fact.
"Well, if two competent crew were doing their job in an efficient and competant manner and one, you say, was flying the aircraft rather than both heads in the cockpit worrying about some unproven problem, who was not competant at DR nav and who was not looking out of the window?"
Again the clue is in the if, but I guess you knew that already.
"They certainly hit the hill.That is a fact." now that is an undeniable fact.