Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston:
You prove my first point quite well. You believe you are correct yet there are only two apostrophes in the entire portion you quoted. In both cases they are used in the possessive, ("pilot's" and "crewman's" - since they both own their own heads).
Now, if this is your level of comprehension, (not to mention your ability in debate), I'd suggest that your arguments here are barely worth reading. I'm almost surprised you didn't demand that I capitalize the word "pilot".
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?
You prove my first point quite well. You believe you are correct yet there are only two apostrophes in the entire portion you quoted. In both cases they are used in the possessive, ("pilot's" and "crewman's" - since they both own their own heads).
Now, if this is your level of comprehension, (not to mention your ability in debate), I'd suggest that your arguments here are barely worth reading. I'm almost surprised you didn't demand that I capitalize the word "pilot".
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?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows
Waypoint D as entered in the SuperTANS was:
N 57: 32.42 W 004: 02.92
converting decimal minutes to nearest sec gives N 57: 32' 25” W 004: 02' 55”
If you read again my recent posts on this, perhaps you may understand that if you look at, say, an OS map overing the area of Inverness aerodrome and you just want an approximate spot as a waypoint to aim at for your route nav then the intersection of the runways at the centre of the aerodrome is an obvious choice and the nearest grid lines to read off the map easily and quickly are (as I posted #4892 to Dalek):
“... 52 and half way between 77 & 78, thus NH775 520 which translates to N57:32' 25” W 4:02' 55” in lat&long which is waypoint D”.
Again I quote from a recent post (#4875) to Dalek
“FOR EXAMPLE Waypoint C in the sea off Fort George, was entered into the STANS as:
N 57.35.02 W 004.04.45 - seems very accurate? But this position on an OS map is the exact intersection of two grid lines – it is at GB grid NH 760 570.
Just what you'd do for an approximate waypoint to assist in route navigation.
Get the picture? I'll leave it to you to check the others. ”.
Now, why don't you all track down someone who has actually landed at that LZ on the Mull and ask them what waypoint/inner marker coords they used? Too shy? You wouldn't be putting any future exercises at risk as the spot seems to be avoided since the crash.
Waypoint D as entered in the SuperTANS was:
N 57: 32.42 W 004: 02.92
converting decimal minutes to nearest sec gives N 57: 32' 25” W 004: 02' 55”
If you read again my recent posts on this, perhaps you may understand that if you look at, say, an OS map overing the area of Inverness aerodrome and you just want an approximate spot as a waypoint to aim at for your route nav then the intersection of the runways at the centre of the aerodrome is an obvious choice and the nearest grid lines to read off the map easily and quickly are (as I posted #4892 to Dalek):
“... 52 and half way between 77 & 78, thus NH775 520 which translates to N57:32' 25” W 4:02' 55” in lat&long which is waypoint D”.
Again I quote from a recent post (#4875) to Dalek
“FOR EXAMPLE Waypoint C in the sea off Fort George, was entered into the STANS as:
N 57.35.02 W 004.04.45 - seems very accurate? But this position on an OS map is the exact intersection of two grid lines – it is at GB grid NH 760 570.
Just what you'd do for an approximate waypoint to assist in route navigation.
Get the picture? I'll leave it to you to check the others. ”.
Now, why don't you all track down someone who has actually landed at that LZ on the Mull and ask them what waypoint/inner marker coords they used? Too shy? You wouldn't be putting any future exercises at risk as the spot seems to be avoided since the crash.
Thirdly, which versions of events are correct;
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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...............
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?
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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)
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...............
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
No - just seeing if I could wind you up into showing how you thought...... and it worked.
Yup - and some of them may be lying or disturbed! (or affected by unknown outside influence)
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...!
You were drunk....
Firstly, everyone who pleads guilty or no contest would be convicted.
quite appropriate in your case. I'll try to make it clear without being vulgar... Head, rectum... Go!!!
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...!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Your blatant avoidance for all to see is all the answer required.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Caz
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
), 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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Let me try.
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.
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?
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?
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.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian:
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...
bast0n,
would it not have been quicker to write, "I don't know"?
would it not have been quicker to write, "I don't know"?
Baston:
Nice try... Not...