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 24th Jun 2009, 15:26
  #4941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Brian

We have been here before I believe; the BOI is the Convening Officers BOI. As, however, the AOC has many other matters to attend to (including other BOI's or Unit Inquiries) he appoints an Investigating Board to inquire into the occurrence and produce a report containing the salient facts. It is normal to invite the Board to give their opinion in respect of human failings. That opinion is in no way binding on the AOC; or on the CinC who will subsequently review the proceedings.

As you will be aware, this particular BOI was also reviewed by the then CAS who did not see fit to alter any of the findings.

Best wishes
cazatou is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2009, 18:22
  #4942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Dalek #4994
<<Visibility is difficult to assess over land and impossible over the sea.>> Quite agree, and I add, perception of distance varies greatly with visibility.
Your example is a very good illustration of the most probable situation they were in regarding theor spatial orientation but I would qualify this bit <<What if the TANS is lying?>> - Flt Lt Tapper for one would not have trusted the TANS to be accurate, so I would suggest “What if the equipment he was referring to was lying?”
<<So what have we now. "Gross negligence" or "error of judgment" partly induced by equipment error.>> - definitely the latter of these two options – what if the equipment misled them because the party on the ground with the ground equipment was out of position? - no fault at all? - what about their speed? - were they instructed to do a fast approach? We would need to get to the details of the planning to establish any of this. Just the existence of another piece of nav equipment or an extra task not disclosed so far would make the existing harsh verdict unsustainable – the full details would either exonerate them or at least apportion a fairer degree of blame.


Airborne Aircrew #4992
<<This comes with the understanding that each data point that is missing, questionable or that goes unconsidered is a point of doubt as to the integrity of the scenario. >> Quite right, but if all the data fits? What item of available data does not fit with the scenario I have put forward? - individual points have been argued but have they not held true? The only block I see is the denial that such equipment was fitted – it sure as hell looks like it was and the initial denials were puerile. It would be nice if someone would come forward on the open forum describing its fit and function on HC2 Chinooks a few months after the crash.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2009, 19:24
  #4943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Brian

Your post #4983.

It is the AOC's Board of Inquiry in the same way that in Civilian life it is ultimately the Attorney Generals decision on legal action in a Police Investigation. As they cannot be expected to do all the investigative work in every case themselves it is delegated to others prepare the findings for their decision. The number of Board and Unit Inquiries at that time was well into double figures.
cazatou is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2009, 21:20
  #4944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
The number of Board and Unit Inquiries at that time was well into double figures.
So the AOC was overworked and possibly confusing the evidence and finding in one case with those in another. I suppose that could explain it.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2009, 22:44
  #4945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,266
caz:
It is the AOC's Board of Inquiry
And it was HM's aircraft, caz, but both aircraft and BoI had one thing in common: neither was fit for purpose. Given that the same can be said for all the BoI's of accidents that have been the subjects of major threads on this forum, ie the core deficiency in the aircraft and the necessary corrective action did not emanate from the Accident Investigation, one might detect a pattern of ineffectiveness here.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 06:32
  #4946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Airborne Aircrew

You are promoting inanity into an art form.

Chugalug 2

You are, once again, stating your opinion as an established finding.
cazatou is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 06:43
  #4947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,015
You are, once again, stating your opinion as an established finding.
Pot, meet kettle................
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 09:15
  #4948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Fitter 2

Nope, I quote the Findings - unlike a very large percentage of contributors to this thread I have read the BoI in its entirety; including all the annexes with their appendices. IIRC the whole BOI Report was about 8 -10 inches thick.
cazatou is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 09:31
  #4949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,644
caz,

But, thanks to tucumseh, you have been caught out using selective quotes to try to show that Tapper was not involved in the flight planning. As I have said before, you are thoroughly discredited.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 10:01
  #4950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,266
Caz:
Chugalug 2

You are, once again, stating your opinion as an established finding.
You have an exceedingly dry sense of humour, caz. I grant you that at least! What on earth do you think the AOC, the AOC in C, the CAS or come to that yourself were doing if not the very same? After 15 years we are still waiting for the concrete evidence to justify the finding against Rick and Jon "with no doubt whatsoever". The words "hell" and "freezes over" come to mind! So in your opinion, which BoI did pinpoint the key deficiency in the aircraft that ensured that all of the holes in flip's rather ripe cheese lined up? This one, the Hercules, the Nimrod? All three aircraft were not fit for purpose, and I say again neither were the investigations that failed to spot it. When instead you need a coroner to tell you that "there is something wrong with our bloody aircraft today", you need to take a long hard look at yourself. Yes that's my opinion caz. It is for others to denounce it or concur.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 13:39
  #4951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Walter
First of all remember, we are discussing a scenario. A possible sequence of events.
In the scenario I painted, the one time that JT would have known an almost exact Vis was, on departure at Aldergrove. He was very familiar with the local landmarks.
If he assessed his initial Vis as our (theoretical) 3nms, he would, without further outside influences, expect to see the cliffs at 3nms. When the TANS told him the range was 3nms he would believe it because he "knew" it was right.
I use only the TANS in the scenario, because I have never seen any evidence of any "on land" equipment being invoved.
If it was you will never get anyone to admit it.
dalek is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 15:44
  #4952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
DALEK

If he assessed his initial Vis as our (theoretical) 3nms, he would, without further outside influences, expect to see the cliffs at 3nms. When the TANS told him the range was 3nms he would believe it because he "knew" it was right.
As I have stated before - the old stopwatch/speed/time DR backup may have warned him his TANS was wrong. It does get it wrong occasionally and old and not so bold pilots etc......................................................
bast0n is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 16:52
  #4953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Hi Baston,
Confirm you have read my 4785. If you still wish to raise the issue, I will gladly discuss.
Regards
dalek is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 17:36
  #4954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Dalek

Yes - I have read it. Very interesting it is as well. I feel that you dismiss the good old DR in a bit of a cavalier fashion. This was not a long coast to coast transit, and as I stated - DR "may" have averted disaster. It certainly has in the past and will probably do so again as long as today's pilots do not get totally consumed by believing that technology will always be right.
bast0n is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 18:00
  #4955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Baston,
I never dimiss DR. Heading, Airspeed, Timing and Stopwatch at all times.
Even with the best GPS / IN available. I would wager a bet that the crew were doing just that.
I pride myself to think that I could considerably better that 4 nm circle of uncertainty by a considerable margin.
Would I spot an error of 1.5nms after 15 minutes over water with all the variables including W/V. Perhaps.
But remember I was only giving an example.
What if the "coarse turn" was planned at 1.5 nm and the TANS was in error by 0.9nm.
Still feel they would spot it.
Regards
dalek is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 18:06
  #4956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
pulse 1

Flt Lt Tapper may have taken over the planning but the handwriting on the chart was that of Lt K. The position entered in the SuperTans for the Mull was that of the HLS NOT the Lighthouse - what was referred to as "a misplot" to the HOL Committee. If that was entered into the SuperTans by Flt Lt Tapper assuming it was the Lighthouse; then he entered an incorrect waypoint that he had neither planned nor checked. That is negligence. If the routing was entered by someone else then he was negligent because he failed to confirm that what he considered to be the correct waypoints had been entered.

Its the down side of Captaincy - it is called responsibility.
cazatou is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 19:07
  #4957 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Originally Posted by caz
If that was entered into the SuperTans by Flt Lt Tapper assuming it was the Lighthouse; then he entered an incorrect waypoint that he had neither planned nor checked. That is negligence. If the routing was entered by someone else then he was negligent because he failed to confirm that what he considered to be the correct waypoints had been entered.
- you really need to forget this 'waypoint/negligence thing'. We are talking about a low-level, VMC nav leg, with a known-to-be-inaccurate TANS. 'Precise' checked Wpts are not the way it is done.The 'waypoint' would have been 'on the Mull' and easily 'eyeballed' by the crew as such and GOOD ENOUGH for that flight (unless, of course, you are on WK's side of a precision IMC approach to a hillside LDZ?). Nor do we do it Baston's way, flying at night, IMC, ?below SA? towards an enemy coast - in snow - and using 'DR', heaven help us. Mk 1 eyeball it is as per standard. Timed legs it is as per standard. See the coast and turn along it as per standard. Exactly as per the HoL report said. They didn't. No-one knows why. That is the puzzle.
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 19:09
  #4958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Dalek

Would I spot an error of 1.5nms after 15 minutes over water with all the variables including W/V. Perhaps.
I do hope so. That's a hell of an error in such a short time. If they were VFR ,even if they were out by 3 or 4 miles they MUST have seen the coast. If you are saying that this aircraft was out of control and hurled itself into the scenery with the pilots unable to alter events that is a pretty long shot. It may not have been "airworthy" in the technical sense, but the crew accepted it as serviceable which to my mind is much more important.

As ever - a fascinating discussion.
bast0n is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 19:56
  #4959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,266
bastOn:
It may not have been "airworthy" in the technical sense, but the crew accepted it as serviceable which to my mind is much more important.
Could you please explain that bizarre statement, bastOn? I'm not trying to be clever, I really don't understand what you mean. You have regalled us with the professional way that you would have planned and flown this fatal leg using DR and airmanship that you find lacking in the crew that did fly it....and then you come out with this incomprehensible gobbledygook. Presumably the Nimrod crew are also to be similarly castigated posthumously? They accepted their aircraft as serviceable, which of course is of much greater importance than that it was unairworthy and recognised as such by the RAF! What on earth is going on in that mind of yours? Can you share it with us, for I am at a loss to know what on earth it can be.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2009, 21:20
  #4960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Baston,
No it isn't. That is why AP???? gives figures to work to. OK, average crews average conditions.
If you can guarantee accuracy, over water which is around one third of this average, you are exceptional.
Wish I was. Wish the crew were.
Regards
dalek 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.