Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
So you are saying, are you not, that Experienced and Well Qualified Officers who are placed into a Staff Appointment should only ever be able to comment, or make recommendations, in respect of those aircraft types that they have flown in Service.
How does the RAF introduce a new Type of Aircraft into Service with those constraints? Would all Air Officers in future have to be graduates of ETPS?
So you are saying, are you not, that Experienced and Well Qualified Officers who are placed into a Staff Appointment should only ever be able to comment, or make recommendations, in respect of those aircraft types that they have flown in Service.
How does the RAF introduce a new Type of Aircraft into Service with those constraints? Would all Air Officers in future have to be graduates of ETPS?
Your Caps Lock seems to be sticking a bit...
People so allegedly 'experienced and well-qualified', when in 'staff appointments', should acknowledge lack of relevant experience when commenting on something about which they have scant knowledge. "Sorry, I don't know - I'll find out" might be a start. Or would that lose them too many staff smartie points?
If you want to continue clouding the issue with irrelevant pontifications, be my guest. But the simple fact is that neither you, Day nor Wratten has the slightest clue about what actually happened to the level of proof their shameful verdict required by their own rules.
People so allegedly 'experienced and well-qualified', when in 'staff appointments', should acknowledge lack of relevant experience when commenting on something about which they have scant knowledge. "Sorry, I don't know - I'll find out" might be a start. Or would that lose them too many staff smartie points?
If you want to continue clouding the issue with irrelevant pontifications, be my guest. But the simple fact is that neither you, Day nor Wratten has the slightest clue about what actually happened to the level of proof their shameful verdict required by their own rules.
bastOn, I'm a bit confused about your take on this accident. You say that little is really relevant apart from the last few moments preceding the crash. I'd take issue with that and hope that is not the present stance of RAF Accident Investigation. At the same time you plead for kindness to the pilots' memories based on the benefit of the doubt. That was their right, there is no call for kindness, nor none expected. Any doubt means not Grossly Negligent, endex. You also warn in an earlier post against vested interests. Indeed. Such a sign, in glowing neon, should be hung above the main entrance to Main Building.
1. The MOD was responsible for the Interim Release to Service of an unairworthy aircraft type.
2. Despite pleas from the Flight Detachment Commander to the contrary, he was fatally ordered to use this unairworthy aircraft to fly passengers who were essential to our National Security.
3. Evidence and Witnesses to 1. above were withheld from the BoI.
4. Nonetheless it was not the BoI but the ROs that brought in the infamous finding of Gross Negligence against the pilots.
5. The most important item in this list, and which has emerged in this thread, is 1.
1. The MOD was responsible for the Interim Release to Service of an unairworthy aircraft type.
2. Despite pleas from the Flight Detachment Commander to the contrary, he was fatally ordered to use this unairworthy aircraft to fly passengers who were essential to our National Security.
3. Evidence and Witnesses to 1. above were withheld from the BoI.
4. Nonetheless it was not the BoI but the ROs that brought in the infamous finding of Gross Negligence against the pilots.
5. The most important item in this list, and which has emerged in this thread, is 1.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tucumseh. Your repeated assertion about the alleged unairworthiness of this Chinook, invites a repeat of earlier questions, ie, if it was not airworthy then just what changes were made to correct that failing? And if no corrections were made, then why are these machines still authorised to operate? Regards JP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
I am also amazed at the view taken by some.
If this flight had not ended in tragedy no-one would be any the wiser or care about it. The fact that it ended in tragedy means that it became everyone’s business.
An analogy. 44 ton truck at 56mph driving down the M20 in a glorious summers dawn. Mist patches about, damp road, whisps of drifting fog. East European driver over his hours, had complained to his boss about the brakes fading, told to get on with it or lose his job, wife had left him, on the phone to his girlfriend who tells him she is pregnant by another man as he enters a fog bank. Slams on the brakes and stops 4” short of Fiat Panda with ICAN standard family, 2+2 and small dog. No story – lots of rules broken but no judgement or prosecution. If he had stopped four feet further on causing horrific crash, jumps out and survives, all the vehicles catch fire destroying most of the evidence he would have had the book thrown at him, been locked up and the keys thrown away. If the Chinook had landed with a bit of heather round the wheels it would have been the same scenario, breakfast, un-airworthiness and all that, but without the tragic ending and no judgement would have been made upon the crew.
That’s why the last part of the flight is so crucial.
I am also amazed at the view taken by some.
If this flight had not ended in tragedy no-one would be any the wiser or care about it. The fact that it ended in tragedy means that it became everyone’s business.
An analogy. 44 ton truck at 56mph driving down the M20 in a glorious summers dawn. Mist patches about, damp road, whisps of drifting fog. East European driver over his hours, had complained to his boss about the brakes fading, told to get on with it or lose his job, wife had left him, on the phone to his girlfriend who tells him she is pregnant by another man as he enters a fog bank. Slams on the brakes and stops 4” short of Fiat Panda with ICAN standard family, 2+2 and small dog. No story – lots of rules broken but no judgement or prosecution. If he had stopped four feet further on causing horrific crash, jumps out and survives, all the vehicles catch fire destroying most of the evidence he would have had the book thrown at him, been locked up and the keys thrown away. If the Chinook had landed with a bit of heather round the wheels it would have been the same scenario, breakfast, un-airworthiness and all that, but without the tragic ending and no judgement would have been made upon the crew.
That’s why the last part of the flight is so crucial.
Well it would seem that your philosophy and that of the MOD has much in common then bastOn, break all the rules but no accident equals no problem, break all the rules and big accident equals big problems. Solution? Find a scapegoat, or in this case two. The prime cause of your Eastern European's (near) accident was an irresponsible employer which makes it indeed a fitting simile for this accident. The employer here was Grossly Negligent in releasing an unairworthy aircraft into service, in contrast though the alleged Gross Negligence of the pilots has yet to be proved, even during those last few vital seconds.
It may be true in the Brave New World over which the MOD now presides, but it is the complete antithesis of the one that I left in 1973! The whole philosophy then was accident prevention. Each and every incident was reported and depending on its severity became either the subject of immediate remedial action or at the very least another part of a data base that highlighted weak points for similar action. Above all though Airworthiness was achieved and maintained by continuous audit. as illustrated by tucumseh. Now it would seem most of that Flight safety system has been swept away by the bean counters and we're back to the attitude that "S**t happens, so?". Well so 29 people die unnecessarily, that's so.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
Perhaps we could have your perspective on the Aircraft Captain asking the Groundcrew to "have a look" at the avionics without indicating any unservicability in the Form 700 or raising any Incident Report?
Of course, because no paperwork was raised by the Captain - there was no record of any "remedial" action taken; and no confirmation by a SNCO that all necessary safety checks had been carried out and the aircraft was servicable.
We don't know if what was looked at was what the Captain meant:- so we don't even know if the fault the Captain meant was not the "fault fixed" but the fault that caused the crash!!
Perhaps you would care to comment?
Perhaps we could have your perspective on the Aircraft Captain asking the Groundcrew to "have a look" at the avionics without indicating any unservicability in the Form 700 or raising any Incident Report?
Of course, because no paperwork was raised by the Captain - there was no record of any "remedial" action taken; and no confirmation by a SNCO that all necessary safety checks had been carried out and the aircraft was servicable.
We don't know if what was looked at was what the Captain meant:- so we don't even know if the fault the Captain meant was not the "fault fixed" but the fault that caused the crash!!
Perhaps you would care to comment?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
I agree it would be very interesting to know exactly what changes have been made to the Chinoook since the frankly awful limited RTS - for certain, the FADEC is a lot better. However, as many as 5 years after the crash, the MoD admitted they did not know the answer to this because their audit trail was still in a mess. I sincerely doubt that much has changed in respect to the MoD's knowledge. Tuc might put us right?
caz
As others have pointed out, there is no need to be rude nor wave your willy at me, so please desist.
However, I'm very sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick - I never said you were not 'well travelled' - just a little predictable.
I agree it would be very interesting to know exactly what changes have been made to the Chinoook since the frankly awful limited RTS - for certain, the FADEC is a lot better. However, as many as 5 years after the crash, the MoD admitted they did not know the answer to this because their audit trail was still in a mess. I sincerely doubt that much has changed in respect to the MoD's knowledge. Tuc might put us right?
caz
As others have pointed out, there is no need to be rude nor wave your willy at me, so please desist.
However, I'm very sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick - I never said you were not 'well travelled' - just a little predictable.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
<<Nevertheless, I consider that comments about the preparation for flight are irrelevant from anyone except RW aircrew intimately familiar with the conduct of such flights.>>
All well and good except that such eminently suitable people have not made public a considered analysis of all the available data - identifying correlation with their procedures - nor supplied the details of their procedures for others to do it.
<<Nevertheless, I consider that comments about the preparation for flight are irrelevant from anyone except RW aircrew intimately familiar with the conduct of such flights.>>
All well and good except that such eminently suitable people have not made public a considered analysis of all the available data - identifying correlation with their procedures - nor supplied the details of their procedures for others to do it.
JP
You indeed asked this question before, and I replied. I assume therefore you did not take my advice, or MoD did not offer an answer – both equally likely.
Maintaining the Build Standard consists of 17 core components, as stated by the only Def Stan dedicated to the subject. (And the Build Standard is but one small component, albeit a crucially important one, of airworthiness). Designing and proving modifications to correct faults or defects is one part of one component. The suggestion that a modification would make the aircraft airworthy would mean the other components are implemented properly. They are not.
Again, you will have to ask MoD what changed, but first I recommend you bone up on what constitutes airworthiness. It helps if the question makes sense, as they take great delight in being pedantic when replying. As I said at #4511;
For what its worth, I think that, having introduced a policy in 1991 deliberately compromising airworthiness, MoD decided to take a calculated risk and continue to carry on lacking the “defences in depth” the regulations mandate. In modern parlance, many slices of cheese disappeared and the holes in the rest got bigger. The probability of occurrence increased.
If MoD had been honest and said “We are taking this calculated risk, as we can’t afford the current cost” then everyone concerned could make an informed decision as to their role.
But they weren’t honest. Every time the policy was challenged you got a different reply, until (in our case) the 2 Star cracked and threatened dismissal if we insisted on implementing the regulations. (December 1992). The single most appalling excuse for telling me to ignore an aircraft being unsafe, was when I was told “He’s the 2 Star’s mate and earmarked for promotion, so don’t rock the boat”. I ignored this and notified two 2 Stars, recommending specific corrective action. Unfortunately, while the subsequent BoI repeated my recommendation word for word, they had come to it independently, as they hadn’t been told it had been made previously. Nor was the Coroner. So the lessons couldn’t be learned as crucial evidence was withheld. Same as Chinook really. Same 2 Star post.
Tucumseh. Your repeated assertion about the alleged unairworthiness of this Chinook, invites a repeat of earlier questions, ie, if it was not airworthy then just what changes were made to correct that failing? And if no corrections were made, then why are these machines still authorised to operate? Regards JP
You indeed asked this question before, and I replied. I assume therefore you did not take my advice, or MoD did not offer an answer – both equally likely.
Maintaining the Build Standard consists of 17 core components, as stated by the only Def Stan dedicated to the subject. (And the Build Standard is but one small component, albeit a crucially important one, of airworthiness). Designing and proving modifications to correct faults or defects is one part of one component. The suggestion that a modification would make the aircraft airworthy would mean the other components are implemented properly. They are not.
Again, you will have to ask MoD what changed, but first I recommend you bone up on what constitutes airworthiness. It helps if the question makes sense, as they take great delight in being pedantic when replying. As I said at #4511;
…..the cardinal error so common on this thread (and, notably, by the Reviewing Officers) – it confused Serviceability with Airworthiness.
For what its worth, I think that, having introduced a policy in 1991 deliberately compromising airworthiness, MoD decided to take a calculated risk and continue to carry on lacking the “defences in depth” the regulations mandate. In modern parlance, many slices of cheese disappeared and the holes in the rest got bigger. The probability of occurrence increased.
If MoD had been honest and said “We are taking this calculated risk, as we can’t afford the current cost” then everyone concerned could make an informed decision as to their role.
But they weren’t honest. Every time the policy was challenged you got a different reply, until (in our case) the 2 Star cracked and threatened dismissal if we insisted on implementing the regulations. (December 1992). The single most appalling excuse for telling me to ignore an aircraft being unsafe, was when I was told “He’s the 2 Star’s mate and earmarked for promotion, so don’t rock the boat”. I ignored this and notified two 2 Stars, recommending specific corrective action. Unfortunately, while the subsequent BoI repeated my recommendation word for word, they had come to it independently, as they hadn’t been told it had been made previously. Nor was the Coroner. So the lessons couldn’t be learned as crucial evidence was withheld. Same as Chinook really. Same 2 Star post.
Caz:
Questions, questions, questions, as ever caz. For me, for flip, and a nudge for Beags to answer his. Busy, busy, busy, but little enough from yourself in return of course. I have no idea what is alleged to have happened pre departure, caz. Perhaps you have and can spell out what is known regarding servicing. If you know that the captain wanted someone to "have a look at" the avionics, then perhaps you know what if anything was then done and by whom. I have no reason to believe that the aircraft state was anything other "serviceable" for that flight. My contention, together with others, is serviceable it may well have been but airworthy it most certainly was not, in company with its sister Mk2's under the bizarre restricted RTS. It was Grossly Negligent of the Airworthiness Authority to have released it into service thus. The alleged Gross Negligence of the pilots has yet to be proved.
Chugalug 2
Perhaps we could have your perspective on the Aircraft Captain asking the Groundcrew to "have a look" at the avionics without indicating any unservicability in the Form 700 or raising any Incident Report?
Perhaps we could have your perspective on the Aircraft Captain asking the Groundcrew to "have a look" at the avionics without indicating any unservicability in the Form 700 or raising any Incident Report?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn
The Investigating Board felt unable to come to a unanimous finding in respect of negligence and the Station Commander at Aldergrove was only required to comment on those aspects that came under his jurisdiction.
Ir was the Station Commander at Odiham who found negligence in respect of the Aircraft Captain; a finding that was extended to the Co-Pilot by the AOC 1 Group. CinC STC concurred and the BOI was then reviewed by CAS.
I have no doubt that all subsequent Chiefs of the Air Staff have also reviewed the findings in this ongoing saga and the findings still stand. The most senior Military Personage in the UK's Armed Forces MRAF Lord Craig, also made his viewpoint quite clear in the HOL debate.
Any political decision to overturn the findings would mean HMG rejecting the considered professional opinions of seven Air Chief Marshals and one Marshal of the Royal Air Force.
The Investigating Board felt unable to come to a unanimous finding in respect of negligence and the Station Commander at Aldergrove was only required to comment on those aspects that came under his jurisdiction.
Ir was the Station Commander at Odiham who found negligence in respect of the Aircraft Captain; a finding that was extended to the Co-Pilot by the AOC 1 Group. CinC STC concurred and the BOI was then reviewed by CAS.
I have no doubt that all subsequent Chiefs of the Air Staff have also reviewed the findings in this ongoing saga and the findings still stand. The most senior Military Personage in the UK's Armed Forces MRAF Lord Craig, also made his viewpoint quite clear in the HOL debate.
Any political decision to overturn the findings would mean HMG rejecting the considered professional opinions of seven Air Chief Marshals and one Marshal of the Royal Air Force.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Tuc. I was hoping for a factual answer to my question, rather than a philosophical one. Perhaps someone else could tell us just what was changed, and if nothing was changed then why were all the CHinooks not grounded? Regards. JP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
I listened to MRAF Lord Craig give his evidence to the HOL. I also listened to Sqn Ldr Burke. Remind me again.
1. Who was the Chinook expert?
2. Whose evidence did the HOL chose to accept?
I listened to MRAF Lord Craig give his evidence to the HOL. I also listened to Sqn Ldr Burke. Remind me again.
1. Who was the Chinook expert?
2. Whose evidence did the HOL chose to accept?