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
dalek
Crew Duty limitations are central to this matter if they affected the way the flight was conducted. Flt Lt Tapper had already obtained approval to increase Crew Duty time to the permitted maximum, but the late arrival of the Pax meant that they would almost certainly require either another extension beyond the permitted maximum or permission from SRAFONI to night-stop out of theatre. Either way he faced a "Hat on" interview on return to base.
Of course, if he had arranged the flying programme utilising one experienced Captain on each crew there would not have been such a problem - would there?
Crew Duty limitations are central to this matter if they affected the way the flight was conducted. Flt Lt Tapper had already obtained approval to increase Crew Duty time to the permitted maximum, but the late arrival of the Pax meant that they would almost certainly require either another extension beyond the permitted maximum or permission from SRAFONI to night-stop out of theatre. Either way he faced a "Hat on" interview on return to base.
Of course, if he had arranged the flying programme utilising one experienced Captain on each crew there would not have been such a problem - would there?
Olive
That's why I say - dig deeper. The aircrews actions are only the last in the chain.
A cursory glance at the next level down shows the aircraft shouldn't have been flying in the first place. Numerous staffs had a duty of care toward the crew and pax. That duty should have manifested itself in an aircraft they had confidence in, thus eliminating a human factors risk (among others).
That duty was abrogated on a grand scale. The aircrew MAY have made an error, but what is certain is that they were let down by their superiors and those whose duty it was to implement the airworthiness regs. That was gross negligence amounting to manslaughter.
That's why I say - dig deeper. The aircrews actions are only the last in the chain.
A cursory glance at the next level down shows the aircraft shouldn't have been flying in the first place. Numerous staffs had a duty of care toward the crew and pax. That duty should have manifested itself in an aircraft they had confidence in, thus eliminating a human factors risk (among others).
That duty was abrogated on a grand scale. The aircrew MAY have made an error, but what is certain is that they were let down by their superiors and those whose duty it was to implement the airworthiness regs. That was gross negligence amounting to manslaughter.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever decreasing circles....there were many contributory factors that led to the tragic loss of the crew and passengers on board ZD576. Mistakes made, for sure; but we are challenging a finding on this thread.
If presented with the same evidence/report that Day and Wratten were, it is unlikely that '12 good men and true' would have found Jon and Rich grossly negligent beyond any doubt whatsoever.
I quote the words of the head of the French Investigation Team now looking into the recent Air France accident:
"Without [the recorders] it will be very difficult to reach established fact, but we can reach a possible explanation"
Paul-Louis Arslanian
AA
If presented with the same evidence/report that Day and Wratten were, it is unlikely that '12 good men and true' would have found Jon and Rich grossly negligent beyond any doubt whatsoever.
I quote the words of the head of the French Investigation Team now looking into the recent Air France accident:
"Without [the recorders] it will be very difficult to reach established fact, but we can reach a possible explanation"
Paul-Louis Arslanian
AA
"Without [the recorders] it will be very difficult to reach established fact, but we can reach a possible explanation"
Paul-Louis Arslanian
Paul-Louis Arslanian
Correct. And regarding Chinook, who was it that decided not to fit the recorders? He should have declared a conflict of interest and quietly stood back, instead of condemning the pilots.
AA:
We are challenging a finding, agreed. But it was a finding made and perpetuated by a rotten and corrupt system that has cost far too many lives already. Until that is truly laid bare and the responsibilities of Accident Prevention and Investigation removed from that rotten and corrupt system it will go on costing more lives. Once that is done however the reversal of the finding which we all, well most of us, seek will happen if it has not already been conceded.
we are challenging a finding on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
In my time in the RAF, until I went on Terminal Leave, there were 764 Accidents (Cat 3 or Higher).
IIRC there were 14 BOI's in progress at HQ 1 Gp alone at the time the BOI of ZD 576 was in progress; plus (IIRC) 3 Unit Inquiries.
Are you going to sort through all 764 of them?
PS Only one was mine - a CAT 3 Birdstrike 3 Dec 66.
In my time in the RAF, until I went on Terminal Leave, there were 764 Accidents (Cat 3 or Higher).
IIRC there were 14 BOI's in progress at HQ 1 Gp alone at the time the BOI of ZD 576 was in progress; plus (IIRC) 3 Unit Inquiries.
Are you going to sort through all 764 of them?
PS Only one was mine - a CAT 3 Birdstrike 3 Dec 66.
there are none so deaf as those that will not hear
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
I accept that what you say may be true. Flt Lt Tapper may well have made an administrative or operational error, and it may well have been better to use another crew. He may even have been asked to justify his actions at a later date.
You know as well as I do that last minute shuffling of crews has a domino effect on the short and medium term programme. On return to unit Flt Lt Tapper may well have been congratulated or reprimanded once all the facts were known. We don't know all the facts.
The point is that the crash happened on a leg where no breach of crew duty was likely. There were no Flight Safety implications on this particular leg. Had he crashed into the Mull on the return leg without further cdt extension it would have been a major factor.
So, what is your point? Are you suggesting that Flt Tapper, out of fear of a possible reprimand, was induced into unnecessary risks?
That is a big assumption.
Now answer my question
I accept that what you say may be true. Flt Lt Tapper may well have made an administrative or operational error, and it may well have been better to use another crew. He may even have been asked to justify his actions at a later date.
You know as well as I do that last minute shuffling of crews has a domino effect on the short and medium term programme. On return to unit Flt Lt Tapper may well have been congratulated or reprimanded once all the facts were known. We don't know all the facts.
The point is that the crash happened on a leg where no breach of crew duty was likely. There were no Flight Safety implications on this particular leg. Had he crashed into the Mull on the return leg without further cdt extension it would have been a major factor.
So, what is your point? Are you suggesting that Flt Tapper, out of fear of a possible reprimand, was induced into unnecessary risks?
That is a big assumption.
Now answer my question
Caz,
That is mostly true and that is inevitable on a medium such as this. However, I would class the statement given to the HoL by Sq Ldr Burke as evidence, given under oath. Wouldn't you?
That is mostly true and that is inevitable on a medium such as this. However, I would class the statement given to the HoL by Sq Ldr Burke as evidence, given under oath. Wouldn't you?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
If you take off with insufficient fuel for your planned flight but crash due to an unrelated fault - were you negligent in taking off with insufficient fuel?
In respect of your question regarding Sqn Ldr Burke, I was not there. I was, therefore, unable to observe him giving evidence. I have seen various posts that give various accounts as to what he is supposed to have said - I have not seen an official transcript of his evidence.
I am not, therefore, in a position to answer your question.
I do, however, have a question for you. The BOI came to the conclusion, based on the evidence it had received on oath, that the reason Cook & Tapper flew that sortie was because the detatchment crews preferred to work on a day on/ day off rota.
The evidence given on this thread is that they took over the Task from Lt K and Flt Lt T because of the forecast poor wx en-route.
Pray enlighten us - Which version is correct?
If you take off with insufficient fuel for your planned flight but crash due to an unrelated fault - were you negligent in taking off with insufficient fuel?
In respect of your question regarding Sqn Ldr Burke, I was not there. I was, therefore, unable to observe him giving evidence. I have seen various posts that give various accounts as to what he is supposed to have said - I have not seen an official transcript of his evidence.
I am not, therefore, in a position to answer your question.
I do, however, have a question for you. The BOI came to the conclusion, based on the evidence it had received on oath, that the reason Cook & Tapper flew that sortie was because the detatchment crews preferred to work on a day on/ day off rota.
The evidence given on this thread is that they took over the Task from Lt K and Flt Lt T because of the forecast poor wx en-route.
Pray enlighten us - Which version is correct?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Pulse1. I did ask Tuc some weeks ago to give us the definitions of 'airworthy' and 'serviceable' as they were 14 or 15 years back, but I cannot trace his reply. Regards JP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will answer your question again.
I do not know. Perhaps someone else could help.
You state that I / we base our conspiracy theories on the HOL evidence of Sqn Ldr Burke. You contribute regularly to this thread, but you have never bothered to look up his evidence to the HOL? It is in the public domain. Can I assume that you are afraid you will have no answers?
Your analogy of the fuel is a complete red herring.
The crew had ample cdt to get to Inverness. At that point, from the cdt point of view, there would have been no negligence. Beyond that point everything is conjecture.
I do not know. Perhaps someone else could help.
You state that I / we base our conspiracy theories on the HOL evidence of Sqn Ldr Burke. You contribute regularly to this thread, but you have never bothered to look up his evidence to the HOL? It is in the public domain. Can I assume that you are afraid you will have no answers?
Your analogy of the fuel is a complete red herring.
The crew had ample cdt to get to Inverness. At that point, from the cdt point of view, there would have been no negligence. Beyond that point everything is conjecture.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek,
Caz knows exactly what S/L Burke evidence consisted of, but as you suggest he cannot go near it as it flies in the face of his arguement.
JP,
Sir you cannot seriously be complaining that someone has not answered one of your questions? I seem to remeber Meadowbank asking you for your thoughts with regards to the UFCM suffered by a US Chinook which you side stepped in true politician fashion. If I can find the post number I will remind and perhaps you can give us your thoughts.
Caz knows exactly what S/L Burke evidence consisted of, but as you suggest he cannot go near it as it flies in the face of his arguement.
JP,
Sir you cannot seriously be complaining that someone has not answered one of your questions? I seem to remeber Meadowbank asking you for your thoughts with regards to the UFCM suffered by a US Chinook which you side stepped in true politician fashion. If I can find the post number I will remind and perhaps you can give us your thoughts.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
Not really - they did fly a serviceable aircraft into a cloud with a rock in it. Who was not paying attention to basic airmanship - time/distance and so on?
Beyond that point everything is conjecture.
they did fly a serviceable aircraft into a cloud with a rock in it.
I am ashamed of the state of a service I was once proud to be a member of (or to be more specific, the Air Officers who should know better).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bast0n,
The conjecture would have happened only when they arrived at Inverness.
The point I was making was:
1. The decision to fly from Adergrove to Inverness, without a crew change, was not by itself unsafe. It may well not have been the best option.
3. It is conjecture to say, that after safe arrival at Inverness, the crew would have returned to Belfast without further cdt extension.
2. At some point in between the aircraft hit the ground
The conjecture would have happened only when they arrived at Inverness.
The point I was making was:
1. The decision to fly from Adergrove to Inverness, without a crew change, was not by itself unsafe. It may well not have been the best option.
3. It is conjecture to say, that after safe arrival at Inverness, the crew would have returned to Belfast without further cdt extension.
2. At some point in between the aircraft hit the ground