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 28th Jun 2009, 08:25
  #5001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,882
Caz

Thank you.


My point is that the subject (visibility before, at and after Waypoint change) is so fundamental to the MoD’s case. Noting that the onus is on MoD to prove their case, beyond any doubt.

For a decade MoD used this (supposed) lack of visibility as a major factor when continuing to uphold the verdict.

Suddenly, in the space of a few weeks in 2004 they do a complete about turn. What prompted this?

Something must have. Perhaps not the “new” evidence they always say is needed. Perhaps it was a change of staff somewhere, who were simply not prepared to put their names to briefs that would expose their Minister to ridicule. Whatever it was, the retraction casts doubt and weakens the MoD case significantly. And, in this case, weakness equates to doubt.

If this happened in a court of law, the Defence would be on their feet, but wouldn’t get a word in because the Judge and Jury would be falling about laughing at the Prosecution’s ineptitude. But in this case, the MoD are Judge, Jury and Prosecution Counsel; and make the rules up as they go along.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 10:41
  #5002 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Tuc - indeed - on we go. It appears that Caz is now satisfied with the likely conditions at Waypoint change and the rules, and MOD as you say have 'turned'.
BOAC is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 11:59
  #5003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Chugalug 2

Your Post #5058

1. May I suggest that you address your query to the AVM who was then Wg Cdr President of the BOI. I cannot speak for him and I am not acquainted with him. As I have said many times before; the BOI report was waiting on my desk when I arrived at HQ 1GP in March 1995.

2. Make the analogy a Magistrates Court - although they cannot order executions (at least in my experience) anymore.

Last edited by cazatou; 28th Jun 2009 at 12:22.
cazatou is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 15:51
  #5004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
caz, one of the most dishonourable aspects of a very dishonourable affair is how the buck is passed down the line so that subordinates take the rap for their superiors. I have no doubt that the niceties of the BoI's independence were observed, yet strangely it kept a Nelsonian eye to the Pachyderm forever blocking its view of the other side of the room, which by coincidence protected those further up the food chain involved in the rushed RTS of the unairworthy Chinook Mk2 into service! Meanwhile two JO's are disgraced posthumously. Nice!
As regards Magistrates, they don't do manslaughter cases as well as not doing executions! Nor do they adjudicate in cases in which they have a possible personal involvement.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 16:54
  #5005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug2. Apologies for interupting the present debate, but on 16th April you said
"There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big.
Are you yet in a position to enlighten us, particularly in respect of the state-sponsored murder suggestion?

Brian Dixon. And are you please able to say how the Mull campaign with its two high -powered lawyers is now progressing

Regards. John Purdey
John Purdey is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 17:23
  #5006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,882
One assumes the last post is an indication MoD’s statement.....


“Unfortunately, we are not able to say, even approximately, how far the cloud extended over the sea”



came as an inconvenient and unpleasant surprise?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 18:14
  #5007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
tucumseh,

Please forgive me as I am a long retired "Truckie" - just what is the relevance of how far the cloud extended over the sea? If you are flying VFR at low level at 150 kts with VIP (or any other) Passengers and the cloud was obscuring the high ground on your track YOU DO NOT ENTER THE CLOUD. Clouds when flying at low level are like chocolates - some of them have very hard centres!!

Low level aborts should be second nature to anyone who operates at low level.
cazatou is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 18:15
  #5008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
JP, how flattering that you should recall one of my inconsequential posts from so long ago. From the snippet that you quote I assume that I was summarising some of the then current proposed scenarios, including that one. I seem to remember that the theory was that it was in the interests of either terrorists or state, or both, that the Peace Agreement be successful and that the pax on that aircraft could be seen as a threat to that agreement. Hence the idea, highly dubious in my view, that the accident was no accident but perpetrated by agents of either party mentioned above.
Since you raise the issue I am in unusual agreement with the RO's in that their finding amounted to putting those 29 deaths down to manslaughter. Where I disagree however is with that being blamed on the pilots, as I am persuaded that the reason for this accident was the unairworthiness of the aircraft. That was known of prior to this accident, yet the type was released to service in that condition and over the heads of those best qualified to assess that condition, ie the BD Test Pilots. Their final request that the type be grounded in the RAF the day prior to the crash availed nothing. That is corporate manslaughter in my book, at the very least it certainly seems a convincing argument to remove Airworthiness Authority from the MOD forthwith to an independent MAA. By the same token the totally inadequate Accident Investigation underlines the need for an MAAIB to discover the real reasons for Military Air Accidents.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 18:47
  #5009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug2.
It did not seem to many folk be an inconsequential remark; indeed it hinted at very dark deeds, and at a deep-rooted conspiracy.

So will you be good enough to say exactly what led you down this path, and why you have not gone public (under your real name of course) with whatever evidence or suspicions you might have?
Regards. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 19:21
  #5010 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Caz,
Mr Ellacott stated he was looking for a deserted village and that he was bending down to pick up a piece of quartz, at the time of the accident. Shortly afterwards, he describes the chinook going closely overhead. I can't find any mention of him looking at WW2 crash sites, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. I believe that the poor man was, indeed, one of the first on scene.

Do you have any comment on the statement made by Mr Crabtree where he states that the weather was fairly clear down at the lighthouse?

Clouds when flying at low level are like chocolates - some of them have very hard centres!!
You may not be able to see the hard centre, but if you have sight of the table upon which the chocolate is sitting, (see statement from Mr Crabtree), then you turn away from the table

Mr Purdey,
I regret that I am not in a position to advise you of our current dealings with the two high-powered lawyers (I'll pass on your compliments). Please be assured that we are dealing with them, though. As soon as I am in a position to advise you, I will.

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 19:26
  #5011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Chugalug 2

Could we please have a verbatim copy of the request from A&AEE to immediately ground the Chinook Mk 2 posted by yourself - I have never seen the said document.

Thank you.


Brian Dixon

Mr Crabtree said in evidence to the BOI:

"I was surprised at first that there was a helicopter up in that weather and it seemed very low. I didn't see it because it was up in the mist."

Mrs Crabtree said in evidence to the BOI:

"The weather was really bad, we couldn't see the hills on either side of us because of the thick mist.....As we were walking I heard a helicopter.... I don't know how they saw anything at all."

Last edited by cazatou; 28th Jun 2009 at 19:36.
cazatou is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 19:51
  #5012 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Caz,
would Mr Crabtree's evidence to the BoI be after he had walked back up from the lighthouse, because he definately stated that it was clearer down by it.

Likewise, Mrs Crabtree does not specify where she is standing - Lighthouse, where her husband says it is clearer, or futher up, where we all agree was covered in cloud.

Apologies for answering on behalf of Chug, but is this the document you seek:
Chinook crash: critical internal memo on software flaws | 4 Jun 2009 | ComputerWeekly.com

Kind regards,
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 20:04
  #5013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
JP:
Chugalug2.
It did not seem to many folk be an inconsequential remark; indeed it hinted at very dark deeds, and at a deep-rooted conspiracy
As usual your post is ambiguous, so forgive me if I miss the point that you are making. I have dealt already with the "State Sponsored Murder", ie it was someone else's theory not mine. Regarding Airworthiness, then yes that is my theory as to what caused this crash as I stated in my previous post. Regarding "something big", I presume meant that this thread is based on the obvious injustice done to two JO's by their superiors, in direct contradiction with the laid down Service procedure for posthumous findings of Air Accident Investigations. You'll disagree I'm sure, but plenty share my view. The obvious question then is why should the RAF perpetrate such an injustice and the answer that comes to my mind is to cover up "something big". Hope that answers your question, JP, and the "many folk" of whom you speak! Interesting choice of words, as indeed are "very dark deeds" and "deep-rooted conspiracy". If by that you mean the deliberate and calculated reduction of the UK Military Airworthiness system, I'd be inclined to agree!
PS Brian, thank you, hope that is indeed what you seek caz!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 20:12
  #5014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,642
caz,

Just got back from some great VFR flying in my SEP to read your patronising post. You might be surprised at my military connections but I will keep them to myself for now. Cheers.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 22:33
  #5015 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Caz - I really do not think you have grasped what this is all about. Did you see this from #5052?

I actually think I have hit upon your problem at last, Cazatou - you are obviously under the impression that posters here think the crew were trying to fly over the Mull? There are only a few posters who suggest anything like that, I think, cannot recall names, but one nutter even suggested the crew were trying to 'skim', in IMC, over the Mull by a few hundred feet! Have a good look back through this and the preceding threads and assure yourself that no-one with any credibility actually believes that.

There are only a few posters who suggest anything like that, I think, cannot recall names, - I now can add yours.

We all agree, I'm sure, that if that is what they were planning to do, then the finding is correct, albeit based on an incorrect assumption of the weather off the coast.
BOAC is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2009, 22:38
  #5016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
For anybody unable to read the the document requested by Cazatou (K52), here is the relevant part:

6. RWTS has carefully monitored the progress of this trial and has put tremendous effort into ensuring that it progresses safety to provide timely CA [Controller Aircraft] Release recommendations. These recommendations with respect to FADEC have, to date, been ignored. Until RWTS is provided with a clear, unequivocal and realistic explanation of the faults described at references B through H, with corrective action, further Chinook HC2 flying shall not be authorized. A statement of 'No Fault Found' will no longer satisfy this requirement.

7. As a trials organisation, A&AEE has always been keenly aware of the risks associated with operating the Chinook HC2 and has tailored sortie profiles accordingly. Crews of the RAF have no such luxury and are likely at higher risk than A&AEE crews. As such, RWTS deem it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations until the conditions established in paragraph 6 are satisfied
Cazatou (K52)

You requested the information. What do you think of it??

But then of course you have read this information before. I quoted it 'verbatim' in post 3914 on the 28th Dec.

PS: Document dated 2 Jun 1994 - The day of the accident...

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 28th Jun 2009 at 23:22.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 07:48
  #5017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 418
Tandem,

RWTS clearly restarted their trials as I now fly an aircraft with a full RTS, but the FADEC software (as I've said on numerous occasions) has had only one software change, Rev 1 to fix to the Eng Fail captions.

What do you think you it?
chinook240 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 08:32
  #5018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug2
But the post on 16th April was in your name. Are you now saying you were not the originater? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 08:38
  #5019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
chinook240

My interest in the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 ends on the 2nd Jun 1994. My only interest is the state of the aircraft presented to Flt Lts Tapper and Cook on that day. I imagine few will be comforted by the suggestion that this aircraft was AT BEST a 'work in progress' at the time of the crash!

On that precise day, Boscombe Down test pilots thought it imperative that, in the strongest possible terms, the RAF should be provided with a recommendation to cease Chinook HC2 operations.

Sounds pretty conclusive (and damning) to me. Clearly you have found some esoteric way to read the words differently!

But then of course, you didn't actually say what you thought to Boscombe's recommendation!!! Care to now?
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 09:58
  #5020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
JP you are really very tiresome and not more so than when you persist with your interminable questions. This is my post of 16April2009:
Good post, Walter. You are quite right of course. All of us have something to contribute to this debate, with the possible exception of those who broadcast to "You idiots". As long as we don't expect others to take all our pet theories on board, we deserve to be listened to. There is in this sorry saga a big secret yet to come out. It could be airworthiness, it could be state sponsored murder, it could be neither, but it will be something big. Nothing less would account for the bizarre position that both the RAF High Command and the MOD have adopted, both untenable and unshared by the other national institutions. The truth will eventually come out, it always does. We would do better to work towards that united rather than divided. Thank you, a lesson learned!
I am not going to repeat my account of why I wrote the section that you quoted, please reread my answers above. In reply to your last post, yes I wrote what I quote in this post. I don't expect such a clear answer or my two previous replies to satisfy you. That's not your way is it? For others of a less obtuse attitude I would summarise my thoughts as any and every theory of why this aircraft crashed become a candidate when it is perceived that the Aircraft Operator and the Air Worthiness Authority are in a conspiracy to cover the real reason up. When that conspiracy is seen to involve besmirching the good names of two deceased junior officers with no real proof then those two organisations may expect no respite from those outraged at their behaviour. And yes JP, I've just written that!
Chugalug2 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.