Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[cazatou]

BOAC

Your Post 4798

"It is not thought that they were in fog at waypoint change"

In their evidence to the HOL Committee the Reviewing Officers stated that negligence had occurred by the time the pilots made the waypoint change. If they were in cloud then flight should have been in accordance with IFR. If not, then they had flouted the basic rules of airmanship by flying too fast and too close towards the cloud-covered high ground of the Mull.

" Why they carried on the track they did towards the worsening weather".

As they had not planned the sortie it is unlikely that they were aware that the Lighthouse was NOT the waypoint. The actual waypoint entered into the computer was the Helicopter Landing Site. Thus they neglected the most basic rule of Flight Safety :

DON'T ASSUME - CHECK!!

Of course, if they were aware of the actual position of the waypoint then the finding of Gross Negligence would, in my opinion, be incorrect. The correct finding would have been Recklessness.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by cazatou

As they had not planned the sortie it is unlikely that they were aware that the Lighthouse was NOT the waypoint. The actual waypoint entered into the computer was the Helicopter Landing Site.

- can you tell us from where this statement of fact is deduced? I gather also from others that the planned waypoint was thought to be off the coast and not even the lighthouse?

[Fitter2]

Waste of time, BOAC. Having found that his assertion that the crew were negligent 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' because they might at some time after the flight in question been out of duty hours was so ludicrous even he had to drop it, he is now making another wild assertion.

Why I have no idea (unless he is one of the Reviewing officers and therefore has no shame).

[BOAC]

Agreed, F2, but (I excuse my not re-reading all the threads and posts) was it not stated somewhere that the Mull 'waypoint' was in fact OFF the coast (I might recall the Lighthouse possibly also mentioned?) and if Cazatou is now stating as a fact that the Waypoint programmed was the LDZ it must mean that he is in possession of some information that I am certainly not aware of (see caveat above). Can anyone help by refreshing the waypoints given in the various enquiries please? I cannot at the moment put my mouse on any 'official' maps from the enquiry. Is this in fact new evidence we are looking at?

[walter kennedy]

WAYPOINTS
My post #3935 of 6th Jan 2009 contains a section that describes the waypoints fully.
Just a reminder for other readers, BOAC, you needn't bother yourself as you seem to be able to sound authoritative without doing the background work.

[walter kennedy]

Waypoint A is actually on the land - to make it easy, I posted three charts in #3095 10 Jan 2008 - the 3rd one is nice and clear.
I don't know how anyone can expect to follow the arguments without doing the chartwork and being familiar with the area.

[cazatou]

walter kennedy

Your post #4803

I CONCUR

[BOAC]

I'm not sure how many readers here will be aware of WK and Caz's posts due to their 'ignore' lists, but I note never-the-less the increasing separation of reality from delusion in both of your replies. You MAY have noticed I requested information, and did not make an 'authoritative' and unresearched statement. I do, however, thank you for the link to WK's post of 17 months ago. 'WPT A' is far from conclusive, and in no way can be taken to be "the LZ", "Lighthouse" or an imaginary man with a box of tricks, but if you wish us to assume it to be exact, appears to be a rocky outcrop north and a little east of the lighthouse and not the LZ, and also nowhere near the crash site. I can however see the logic in choosing a WP past the lighthouse on the inbound track as a general aiming point, however.

Now, for the remainder on planet earth, I repeat:

"Can anyone help by refreshing the waypoints given in the various enquiries please? I cannot at the moment put my mouse on any 'official' maps from the enquiry."

Surely the 'route planner' has been asked why 'WPT A' was apparently selected as such and whether it was intended to be the 'LZ', or is he thought to be part of the same conspiracy? Brian - can you cast any light please?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BOAC,

With regards to Caz and WK, some advice given to me a while back was that once their argument is shown as seriously flawed some folk automatically resort to personal attack, it's some sort of defence mechanism due to an inability to accept criticism or an alternative viewpoint.

It seems that one or two recent posts prove that theory quite conclusively

[dalek]

Cazatou,
You agree with Walter. Game over. With two such eminent experts in agreement, the rest of us must be wrong.

[extpwron]

BOAC,

Post #4769, Link - Annex K (page 32)

[cazatou]

BOAC

You have such a way with words.

So you can see why they chose that waypoint - can you?

Perhaps, then, you can explain why the writing on the chart was not the handwriting of either Pilot on that flight? I'll give you a clue - it would help if you read the threads on this tragedy in their entirety; all the way back to the start of this decade!!! Then, when you have done that, read the BOI in its entirety - its only (with its annexes and appendices) about 2 feet thick.

Having done that you can start on the FAI and the HOL Committee minutes - followed by the minutes of the HOL debate.

Then, perhaps, to quote Hotspur in Henry IV Part One:-

" Thou wilt not utter what thou dost not know"

[BOAC]

Thanks to the earthers for the links and posts. Cazatou - your delusion is not stagnant! I do not recall saying So you can see why they chose that waypoint" - can you point me to the post?

EDIT: What a lovely WARM feeling! From Cazatou #4782

"If you are going to quote my posts; would you please have the courtesy to quote the post in its entirety and not an extract edited to suit your point of view." Petard, own, hoisted? I wonder what Hotspur would have to say about that.

Back to WK - I am struggling to see this
"Do the chartwork, too.
What you would then see is an ample, firm, level area about ½ a footy ground in size being oblong with its longer axis following the strata that sticks out to sea – a line that corresponds to 035 mag (at the time) so users could line up nicely along that mini shoreline and with the big, white painted post (that has been uprooted for some reason).
Although almost 300 ft up, its edge is precipitous and drops down to the sea –"

thing - can you give me the precise lat and long as I may have found something on Google - but it is NOWHERE near your waypoint!

Apologies for all the edits, but I cannot at the moment download the Annex link.

[pulse1]

" Thou wilt not utter what thou dost not know"

Seems to me, caz, that you should take your own advice. Neither you, JP, nor the ROs have been able to show that they know what happened that fateful afternoon and, especially, what the conditions were before or at waypoint change.

So, methinks, it is time you stopped uttering.

[walter kennedy]

BOAC In referring to my post, you missed out this: <<
The best way to understand this situation is to walk all over the site on the land, view it by boat, and view it from the air in both clear conditions and those that day (easy to schedule – almost any summer evening with a prevailing southerly blowing – you can count on it).
Do the chartwork, too.
What you would then see is....>> and I suppose I should have said you need to go to 1:25,000 OS maps too in order to recognise the extent by chartwork alone.
EDITING THIS BIT - first typed 250000, what a howler, should wear my reading glasses - I of course meant 1 in twenty five thou, twice the res of the most common (old inch to mile equivalent ) one in fifty - apologies WK
Among several locals who said Chinooks had landed there were a Chief Inspector of Police (who was also a local resident), a serving Judge (ditto) , and a lighthouse keeper.
I have walked all over that LZ with a hand held GPS and a compass.
It is spacious, far, far bigger than the lighthouse landing pad, firm and level..
I have posted photographs of it from above - it is covered by new growth of small ferns now - links to high res photos with descriptions are contained in my posts 2804, 2805, 2806,2807 of 7th November 2997 (page 141 of this thread).
Waypoint A is 60 metres before/south of the edge of the area as on the charts I referred to you - I recognise the paths and walls as a check - when I stood as far as I could get to the seaward edge, my GPS had it that waypoint A was a few tens of yards away - this agrees with the position of Waypoint A on the Google Earth photo - don't forget that the resolution of the aerial photos makes it hard to keep a feel for the scale of what you are looking at - unless you are familiar with the area and features, you have to keep zooming out so as to include man made features such as buildings - a bit like approaching it for real with ground mist? So it is not "nowhere near", is it?
To help you identify the area, may I suggest that you put a marker at the lat/long of waypoint A and then use the ruler feature of Google Earth to go north 60 metres - there you should see the green area (looks like a triangle from higher up slope in the high res photos I posted) which is usefully firm and level for an area of 60 metres by 50 metres (compare that with the helipad at the lighthouse which has tarmac only 10m diameter and no useful area beyond that).
If you just want to play with Google earth, you can put the cursor on the lat/long of the points of interest (don't forget to be careful about converting arcsecs into dec minutes and vice versa where required) and put a marker there which will stay on your computers presentation of Google Earth (so it's worth doing) - impact point, pos of wpt change, etc - see how it lines up.
This sort of thing is basic to start understanding this crash - you do not have to subscribe to a "conspiracy theory" to work through this and get a clearer perspective such that, for example, the proximity to the landmass can be fully appreciated when considering their options whatever aspect you are looking from.

[cazatou]

Pulse 1

Re your post #4812 - you forgot to preface your statement with 3 important words - " In my opinion".

The BOI was convened by AOC 1 Gp to investigate the circumstances surrounding the events of 2 June 1994 and they were invited to give their opinion as to the cause of the crash. The Board felt unable to come to a unanimous decision in respect of negligence as a cause; something that is not unusual with BOI's. Invariably it is left to the Stn Cdr or AOC to adjudicate on negligence; in this case it was the Station Commander RAF Odiham who found that Flt Lt Tapper was negligent. The AOC agreed and extended that finding to Flt Lt Cook. The AOC in C STC and CAS reviewed the findings: AOC in C STC concurred with the findings and CAS did not demur.

In all the subsequent reviews of this tragedy no evidence has been produced that has caused MOD to alter the findings or re-open the Inquiry. In my opinion some of the statements made on this site in mitigation in respect of the events of that day would, if true, actually reinforce the findings of Gross Negligence in respect of the Pilots.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by wk

BOAC In referring to my post, you missed out this:

- and there is little chance in the short term of 'footing' it there. I am quite familiar with the area of old (mid 80's), both on foot and airborne. I cannot relate your position and photos/description to ANYTHING north of Wpt A AND the lighthouse which is where Wpt A is, and your photos APPEAR to point to an area to the south of the lighthouse and near the cliff edge on the coast as far as I can make out, SO it would be far easier for me if you could provide an accurate lat and long for this site of yours? "60m north of Wpt A" I can see nothing relevant. Can you also refresh me on why you think it is logical that an 'imprecise' lat and long would have been entered for an LDZ when its exact position would have been recorded?

[dalek]

I know Cazatou will not answer this, but I will say it again anyway.
If a known unairworthy aircraft were put into service:
1. Stn Cdr Odiham
2. AOC 1Gp
3. AOC in C STC
4. CAS
Would have to shoulder some of the responsibility.
This would cause major litigation issues for HMG, besides embarassment for the above.
RWTS say the aircraft was unairworthy.
Their "opinons" therefore are not impartial and therefore carry less weight than those of the HOL Committee or the Scottish Court.
Nobody in these organisations had any axe to grind. So expert or not they were impartial.
The full HOL vote to reject the findings of their own committee, was taken by a large number of members who had listened to no evidence whatsoever.
It speaks volumes that Cazatou applauds these members, while rubbishing the committee members that sifted through far more evidence than the BOI ever did.

[pulse1]

If Way Point A was in common use by SFH, would not crews know the coordinates or, at least, have them noted down? If so, knowing that they were planning to change to the next Waypoint x miles before Waypoint A, which they did, isn't the exact position for a VFR flight rather irrelevant?

Did Supertans have a facility for storing commonly used waypoints?

I still don't see how this argument helps to justify the certainty of those who claim gross negligence before waypoint change. I cannot understand the argument which denies that, having changed waypoints and therefore having lost all reference to Waypoint A, they did not intend to turn left. Nobody knows why they didn't.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by pulse1

If Way Point A was in common use by SFH, would not crews know the coordinates or, at least, have them noted down? If so, knowing that they were planning to change to the next Waypoint x miles before Waypoint A, which they did, isn't the exact position for a VFR flight rather irrelevant?

- stick with me, p1, if you would, WIP.