Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 19th Jun 2009, 22:18
  #4861 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,671
Thirdly, which versions of events are correct;
I believe that Lt K's version, given under oath, (as produced by tucumseh above) is probably true. And that proves that your attempt to create the impression that Tapper was not involved in the flight planning as totally discredited. As far as I am concerned, everything else you say is not worth reading.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 08:08
  #4862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
AA

My apostophe hypothesis left something to be desired! Is it just possible that I may have been distracted by outside influences? We will never know - but can probably come to a sensible conclusion!

Please, answer a direct question for me. Since it is clear that there is a portion of the flight that begins around the change of waypoint and relies on factors that no-one has been able to determine to date, is it possible that something other than two, (possibly three), experienced airmen flew, willy nilly into a hill that may or may not have been obscured by cloud?
The mysterious "something" is of course always possible in any scenario. If we take that course in life there would never be a conviction in the courts. In this case we will never know but again can probably come to a sensible conclusion.

Would you please explain the description of pilot's anatomy postulated in your previous post? Quite rivetting...............

Last edited by bast0n; 20th Jun 2009 at 09:09. Reason: Spilling
bast0n is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 09:58
  #4863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 74
Posts: 1,743
pulse 1

Your 4920

"I believe that Lt K's version of events ---is probably true. And that proves--"

Chambers Dictionary defines probable (in respect of evidence) as "not conclusive, but admitting of some degree of force".

It does not PROVE anything.

Incidentally - why was Lt K doing the navigation planning when the other member of his Flight Deck Crew was a GD/Nav?
cazatou is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 11:30
  #4864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 306
I believe the Navy Phrase is "around the bouy".
Winch-control is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 11:45
  #4865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,671
Caz,

It does not PROVE anything.
You've got the message at last. Well done.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 11:50
  #4866 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 63
Posts: 1,461
My apostophe hypothesis left something to be desired! Is it just possible that I may have been distracted by outside influences? We will never know - but can probably come to a sensible conclusion!
You were drunk....

The mysterious "something" is of course always possible in any scenario. If we take that course in life there would never be a conviction in the courts. In this case we will never know but again can probably come to a sensible conclusion.
You type before you think don't you. You're wrong again. Firstly, everyone who pleads guilty or no contest would be convicted. Secondly, in court the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof or the balance of probabilities:
  • preponderance of evidence - (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)
  • beyond a reasonable doubt - (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)
Source

I understand that QR's at the time stated there must be "no doubt whatsoever" or words to that effect. Clearly two, very different standards.

So, since you clearly accepted that there may be circumstances that may shed some doubt on the finding, ("The mysterious 'something' is of course always possible in any scenario."), and that the finding therefore does not meet the required standard of proof one assumes you will do the right and gracious thing and state unequivocally that the finding should be reversed... I'm not going to be holding my breath for this...

Would you please explain the description of pilot's anatomy postulated in your previous post? Quite rivetting...............
It's becoming clear from the "apostrophe incident", your misunderstanding of one of the most basic tenets of the legal system that my proposition is quite appropriate in your case. I'll try to make it clear without being vulgar... Head, rectum... Go!!!
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 12:53
  #4867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
AA
You were drunk....
No - just seeing if I could wind you up into showing how you thought...... and it worked.

Firstly, everyone who pleads guilty or no contest would be convicted.
Yup - and some of them may be lying or disturbed! (or affected by unknown outside influence)

quite appropriate in your case. I'll try to make it clear without being vulgar... Head, rectum... Go!!!
At last!! You are showing your true colours. Insults to others, who I think you may be a teeeeny bit jealous of, do not to further your arguments.

I think you should get back to the thread rather than lambasting me.

CAZ- JP - How do you deal with this sort of fellow? Ignoring is too good for them...!
bast0n is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 13:06
  #4868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 63
Posts: 1,461
It's interesting how your posts can so thoroughly ooze arrogance yet, when asked a perfectly simple question, you deflect and call on others to bolster your crumbling position. One can only wonder what is it that is so important to you in this "Gross Negligence" finding that gives you such, apparent, tunnel vision.

Your blatant avoidance for all to see is all the answer required.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 14:48
  #4869 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
AA

You have not read my previous posts have you!

Never have I said that I agree with the ROs findings............!

PS - I much prefer arrogance to ignorance. Pass the coffee.
bast0n is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 15:23
  #4870 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

basTon. There is no way of dealing with them, because, like the Mull Lobby Group, they are not interested in logical discussion, nor in trying to sift the truth from all the mass of material to hand, but, as the Lobby has itself publically made clear, their aim is simply to exonerate the crew of the Chinook. You are dealing with closed minds.

PPRuNe Pop. Of course BOAC is an ace; but I thought we were discussing a Chinook flying into granite-centered cloud, rather than comparing log-books (and I did not start it!).
And just by the way, are you not breaching the confidentiality on which these frank discussions rely?

Regards. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 16:39
  #4871 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
basTon. There is no way of dealing with them, because, like the Mull Lobby Group, they are not interested in logical discussion, nor in trying to sift the truth from all the mass of material to hand, but, as the Lobby has itself publically made clear, their aim is simply to exonerate the crew of the Chinook. You are dealing with closed minds.
See, there you go again, Mr Purdey. Trying to misrepresent the facts. The Campaign group has never approached this with a closed mind. As has been posted throughout this, and every other associated thread is the point that we have not said that the pilots were not negligent. What we have said is that the rules in place at the time of the accident state that in order to find deceased aircrew guilty of negligence, there has to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever. As far as the group are concerned, the burden of proof has not been met. What has come out of all this over the years is the poor introduction into service of the Chinook HC2, the incorrect initial Boeing simulation which was used by the BoI and ROs when reaching their conclusion and the fact that the MoD can operate outside of their own rules, but to name a few.

I have actually been 'sifting for the truth' for the past fifteen years. The only closed minds I have come across are those from within the MoD. It is a bit rich that you accuse me of not being interested in logical discussion. I have lost count of the number of direct questions put to you that you simply choose to ignore, yet you always respond with questions yourself.

I will not give you the satisfation of being the first on my 'ignore' list as, contrary to your claim, I am more than willing to openly debate this issue. Let us, however, stick to the available facts and not rely on speculation and best-guess scenarios.

Now, as you appear to know everything please try to offer answers to the following:
1. What could be seen from the cockpit?
2. How far down the side of the Mull did the cloud extend?
3. How far out from the Mull did the cloud extend?
4. Was the waypoint change made in cloud or with the landmass visible?
5. Was the control pallet attached prior to impact?
6. Were both pilots in agreement with the course of action being taken?
7. The BoI reported that spatial disorientation could not be discounted. Air Marshal Day said he spoke to the Board President who stated that spatial disorientation was not a factor. Who is correct - the BoI or AM Day?

I challenge you to actually answer these questions as opposed to:
1. Claim 'smoke and mirrors'.
2. Stating we have done all this before. (I can't remember the answers, so please remind me).
3. Answering the questions with more questions.
4. Resorting to personal abuse.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 16:51
  #4872 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,971
Caz



Incidentally - why was Lt K doing the navigation planning when the other member of his Flight Deck Crew was a GD/Nav?

I’m not sure why you persist with the inference that Lt K conducted the flight planning by himself. Unless, of course, you do not believe his evidence, or the BoI’s acceptance of it.

To reiterate. Flight planning was conducted collectively by Lt K, Flt Lt T and Flt Lt Tapper. In response to the BoI’s questions, Lt K clearly replies “we”, not “I”.

Please share your thoughts Caz. Tell us what really concerns you about this aspect.



I think I’d be more concerned about the contradictions between what Witness 20 said about the SuperTANS / GPS. Why on earth, as he claimed, would the crew be “complacent” and “over reliant” about a system with the following limitations;

Section O – Navigation Installations

2.2 TNL 8000 GPS – GPS has not yet been declared operational (at IOC) by the US Department of Defense and accuracy is therefore not guaranteed to any level.

2.3 (a) RNS252 GPS (Ext) Position – In addition to paragraph 2.2 above, the GPS is highly susceptible to jamming of which the only crew indication is loss of GPS. ….. The “Err” figure displayed, which has conventionally been taken as a measure of GPS performance, is meaningless and so no indication of the accuracy of the GPS is available to the user.


I don’t know about anyone else, but I find this exchange astonishing. Any pilots here think they’d be complacent or over-reliant about a system which doesn’t have IOC and another which has meaningless (and hence confusing, distracting, worrying) error codes? If anyone says Yes, I’ll retract.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 17:28
  #4873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,827
Brian, thank you. For a while I was worried that this thread would degenerate into the usual PPRuNe slanging match. I wholeheartedly agree with your line; the MOD did not meet it's own standards for burden of proof. Forgetting this strategic issue and getting involved in trivia such as breakfasts, who planned what, STANS coordinates (guilty as charged ), black ops, FADEC runaways etc completely misses the point. Being benevolent, almost every single scenario offered in this forum is plausible, some being quite probable. However, not one of them can be presented with 'absolutely no doubt' which, conveniently, takes us back to the burden of proof conundrum.

Personally, I would be content if the MOD could prove gross negligence - it would give closure. But until the MOD recognise that they failed in attaining their own, clearly defined, burden of proof criteria (it is not for the pilots to prove their innocence) the argument will continue.

JP, Caz, Walter - I respect your views and admire your tenacity. Please don't rise to the bait as this thread has, until now, brought the best out of this forum.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 18:03
  #4874 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
JP - I fully agree that 'exposure' of that part of my flying career is not relevant to this.

What I have been trying to correct, however, based on a fair bit of operational and other low-level flying, is that, far removed from your 'fair-weather only' low-level mantra, both the route, the weather and the crew were in all probability suitable for the task with which they were tasked and they accepted which you seem to refute. Do YOU accept this or do you maintain that they should have abandoned the route because there was (the usual) cloud on the Mull? A simple question I would like confirmed one way or the other please.

Indeed, we DO, as Brian says, very much have an 'open mind' on all of this and we do not know with certainty why they flew on the track they did. Personally I would also be particularly interested in your answers to Brian's questions 1,3,4,5,6 and 7. I would add to 6) 'the other crew-members too'. (I think we can assume coastal stratus/fog for 2). I would indeed like to hear your positive assertion (to support the ROs) that an acknowledged competent multi-crew deliberately and willfully steered the machine from waypoint change towards cloud-covered rising ground (with predictable consequences) rather than follow the logical coastal route. The fact that they did not take the logical action of turning away to stay off the coast is to us totally inexplicable. Perhaps you can offer a reason?
BOAC is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 19:31
  #4875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
Brian

Let me try.

1. What could be seen from the cockpit?
2. How far down the side of the Mull did the cloud extend?
3. How far out from the Mull did the cloud extend?
4. Was the waypoint change made in cloud or with the landmass visible?
5. Was the control pallet attached prior to impact?
6. Were both pilots in agreement with the course of action being taken?
1.Land/sea/cloud - if cloud - action needed.
2.Who knows? What difference would knowing make?
3.Not known - what does this have to do with anything?
4.What difference does that make? If in cloud - big mistake.
5.Who knows - probably yes from the evidence available.
6.Who knows -no one. If they were, another big mistake judging from the result of thier deliberations. Are you suggesting that they were arguing as they flew into the hill?

Again I say - DR/basic airmanship - stopwatch/distance calculation as a back up to all the electronic navigational wizadry would have ensured they did not hit the granite.

With great respect for all the poor victims as always.
bast0n is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 19:54
  #4876 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
bast0n,
would it not have been quicker to write, "I don't know"?

Rick and Jon have been found guilty with absolutely no doubt whatsoever and, as such, the answers to my questions must be known and be supported by presentable evidence.

Why, one must ask, can't the MoD, the Reviewing Officers, Caz, Mr Purdey, me, you or anyone for that matter provide these answers?

Quite simply, because none of us will ever know - and this is why the MoD's verdict is unsustainable.

My best, as always,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 21:01
  #4877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 63
Posts: 1,461
Brian:

bast0n,
would it not have been quicker to write, "I don't know"?
He's only here to cause trouble. Which is why he's happy to exchange barbs but totally unwilling to give anything but flippant answers to questions he can and utterly ignores those he cannot avoid. The Internet is full them. They call them trolls and, despite his delusions and self aggrandizement, Baston is not a very good one...

Baston:

Nice try... Not...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 21:28
  #4878 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
One of the most convincing demonstrations of 'sufficient doubt' (7) ignored, but 6/6 never-the-less) I have seen. Welcome aboard baston.
BOAC is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 21:38
  #4879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 78
Posts: 635
AA

He's only here to cause trouble
They call them trolls and, despite his delusions and self aggrandizement, Baston is not a very good one...
Ah well - a good, succinct and well argued defence for the case for the poor chaps who may have made the ultimate error. Personal abuse is never a substitute for rational debate. I hope that you are proud of yourself AA. Pass the coffee.................................

At the end of the day the aircraft hit the rock and to use this forum to throw abuse at those of us who may have a different concept of the events that led to that awfull moment is a disgrace to the memory of those that died. AA - I hope that you are ashamed of yourself..............but I fear you will not be.

With best wishes, to all of you with better manners than AA.
bast0n is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2009, 22:04
  #4880 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 63
Posts: 1,461
Brian:

Is the John Cook in your sig the same man who was Crewman Leader on 7 Sqn in the mid to late 80's? If so, and if you are in contact with him, please give him my best regards. He probably won't remember me, (I was a 33 Sqn Crewman), but I always saw him as a good man and well worthy of respect.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.