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 30th Jun 2009, 18:06
  #5041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
PS Thanks for your intervention Thor, I see you also got marked down. See you in the dunces' corner! Lol!
I don't consider that a marking down!

I've been a long time lurker on this thread and have been following the story since Computer Weekly first brought it to my attention.

What I can't understand is why anyone would spend so much time defending the status quo, unless they have a vested interest? Any suggestions?

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 18:56
  #5042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thor/Chugaz

It is about a terrible tragedy, a gross injustice and the fervent desire that no more of either be suffered if at all possible
What I can't understand is why anyone would spend so much time defending the status quo, unless they have a vested interest?
Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence and all the posts think that this crew really did make their final error. Chastising the posters for a point of view that actually holds up pretty well in many areas is not conducive to a rational arguement. Keep posting chaps and let us all keep personality out of it. It obscures the view.

And no - I am not Caz!!! MUCH older!
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 19:22
  #5043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
BOAC

Lets do it simply - one step at a time.

WHY DID THE AIRCRAFT CAPTAIN NOT HAVE THE REGIONAL QNH SET ON HIS ALTIMETER?

A simple question regarding something that is axiomatic for every Service Pilot who operates at low level.

Failure to comply with such a basic requirement during a passenger carrying transit flight in poor meteorological conditions is incomprehensible; unless he was preoccupied with listening to the Commercial Radio station selected on the ADF.
cazatou is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 20:07
  #5044 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
think that this crew really did make their final error
- thank you, baston - you have eloquently summed up the whole point of the 'campaign'. The operative word is 'think' - which sits most uncomfortably with 'no doubt whatsoever', or do you understand an opinion to be concrete proof?
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 20:36
  #5045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Thor/Chugaz
Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence and all the posts think that this crew really did make their final error. Chastising the posters for a point of view that actually holds up pretty well in many areas is not conducive to a rational arguement. Keep posting chaps and let us all keep personality out of it. It obscures the view.
Did I bring personality into it? If so, I apologise.

I understand that some people do believe the crew made a serious error, and I have to say I think that seems to me to be the most likely cause.

But, if that was what I was 100% convinced of, which tallies with the official verdict, I don't think I would bother to spend any time refuting claims to the opposite. When I said I don't understand, that wasn't a deprecating comment. I genuinely don't understand why you, JP and Caz are so keen to see the verdict upheld.

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 20:47
  #5046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,264
bast0n:
Maybe - just maybe some people having reviewed all the evidence
All the evidence, bast0n? Not sure how anyone has managed that miracle, unless of course you mean the recorded evidence. The elephant in this room is the unrecorded evidence and the uncalled witnesses to the Chinook Mk2's lack of airworthiness by the BoI. That of course follows a well trodden path by BoI's. 10 people die because an RAF Tactical Transport can be brought down by a single round into a fuel tank, the RAF declares itself "unaware" of repeated calls for ESF to be fitted for decades. It takes a media campaign and a coalition of NoK's and members on PPRuNe to finally make Tactical Transports fit for use in the Tactical environment. 14 people die and it takes a coroner to tell the RAF that the Nimrod is unairworthy and should be grounded until made airworthy, rather than the BoI coming to the same conclusion. Of course the greatest RAF tragedy of them all is this one. 29 people die in an aircraft type that is patently unairworthy. The BoI scarcely considers the issue and the RAF finds the cause of this accident to be the Gross Negligence of the pilots. Does it not occur to you that if BA were its own Airworthiness Authority and its own Accident Investigator that BA crews would be not only working for nothing but also the principal "reason" for its accidents? There would of course be an outcry if the CAA were to ever pull such a stunt (and not disrespecting BA here, I'm sure they would be just as horrified at such an arrangement). Yet this is essentially the arrangement under which UK Military Airworthiness is supposedly assured and maintained. Worked well enough in my days, it was properly funded and respected. I suggest that neither is the case now and this very discredited self regulating system must be changed. To avoid future avoidable accidents and to avoid future needless loss of life a separate and independent MAA must be formed along with an MAAIB to investigate the ones that it fails to avoid.

TN:
What I can't understand is why anyone would spend so much time defending the status quo, unless they have a vested interest?
Quite

Last edited by Chugalug2; 30th Jun 2009 at 21:02. Reason: words dear boy, words!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 22:01
  #5047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Chuga

The elephant in this room is the unrecorded evidence
It really is time for you to produce it.


Thor

I understand that some people do believe the crew made a serious error, and I have to say I think that seems to me to be the most likely cause.

But, if that was what I was 100% convinced of, which tallies with the official verdict, I don't think I would bother to spend any time refuting claims to the opposite. When I said I don't understand, that wasn't a deprecating comment. I genuinely don't understand why you, JP and Caz are so keen to see the verdict upheld.
If you read my posts I have never either supported or denied the verdict of the ROs. I do believe however that the cause of this accident lies not with the airworthiness or serviceability of this particular aircraft, but rather with a tragic error or errors by the crew on the day.

At the end of the day those in charge of making judgement upon such tradgedies have only the evidence to hand upon which to make those judgments. They are probably not privy to the "elephant in the room" or other imaginative scenarios.

Good night all.
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 22:49
  #5048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
If you read my posts I have never either supported or denied the verdict of the ROs.
Ok, I can see what you are saying. Having said this, your last few posts have the phrases "think", "believe", "hold up pretty well". They don't seem to me to be the same as "no doubt whatsoever".

Is your position, then, that having looked at all the evidence you have available, pilot error is the most likely cause? If so, we are in agreement.

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 06:42
  #5049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
The main point is bast0n, that a large number of people on this thread are not convinced that the "no doubt whatsoever" burden of proof has been met.
They include experts in Chinook flying and Airworthiness.
Their combined experience trumps yours, mine , Cazatou, Wratten and Day by a considerable margin.

Cazatou,
Breakfast negligence, Flight Planning negligence, Crew Duty negligence.
Now we have Listening to the Radio negligence.
What next?

What was the Regional QNH? What was set?
dalek is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 08:24
  #5050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thor

Is your position, then, that having looked at all the evidence you have available, pilot error is the most likely cause? If so, we are in agreement.
Yes.

Dalek

The main point is bast0n, that a large number of people on this thread are not convinced that the "no doubt whatsoever" burden of proof has been met.
They include experts in Chinook flying and Airworthiness.
Their combined experience trumps yours, mine , Cazatou, Wratten and Day by a considerable margin.
Quite so.
bast0n is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 09:58
  #5051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
bast0n,

So we are agreed it is the most likely cause. But are you sure, with no doubt whatsoever, that it was the cause?

For me, there is enough doubt. The thing I'm most curious about at the moment is how and why they got that close. If they weren't actually intending to do something there, it seems incredulous, rather than negligent that they should have entered the cloud/fog/mist that they must have before impact.

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 10:18
  #5052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,264
bast0n:
Chuga
It really is time for you to produce it.
Well I certainly agree that such evidence and witnesses should be produced, but at the BoI where it belonged in the first place. The BoI should be reconvened, the finding being put aside and such evidence considered. The RAF thus has the opportunity to get at least one Accident Investigation right and to redeem the honour of not only these two JO's but of itself. That should then be its swansong in such work, for the points I made about self regulation remain. It doesn't work and in aviation it kills. Only a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB can arrest this dangerous game, and then to slowly but effectively reverse it.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 10:54
  #5053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Thor,
If you read back on my more recent entries on small navaid errors coupled with visual illusion, it offers "one" explanation as how the initial problem may have started.
I did't just pluck this example from thin air. There are several USAF and RAF Flight Safety films that show how and why illusion induces incident / accident events.

Last edited by dalek; 1st Jul 2009 at 12:18.
dalek is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 11:38
  #5054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Chugalug 2

A wonderful idea - reconvene the BOI!!!!

I can, however, see just a few problems.

1. Do we use the same Personnel as members of the Board? The then President is now, I believe, an AVM. As for the other members - are they still alive and serving?

2. If you convene a new BOI, which you believe could overturn the findings of the original BOI, then would not all members have to be higher in rank than the current rank of their predecessors?

3. How many witnesses are still alive and available?

4. How much of the wreckage is still available for inspection and assessment?

5. The most Senior Serving Officer of HM Armed Forces (MRAF Lord Craig) believes the original findings were both appropriate and just.

6. The number of Ministers who have reviewed the BOI and concurred with its findings is well into double figures.

7. In the current economic climate just who is going to authorise such an unprecedented course of action?
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 13:00
  #5055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,264
Well it's really down to the Royal Air Force, caz. If it chooses to say that it cannot/will not reopen the BoI so be it. I merely say that this accident should be revisited and be properly investigated. One way or the other the truth will out. It always does. In the other examples of BoIs that I mentioned previously, ie those of the Iraq Hercules and the Afghanistan Nimrod, their shortcomings became apparent when others did the work that they should have done; to find that the first was unfit for purpose, the second unairworthy. The same thing will happen again unless the Royal Air Force regains the initiative, takes new evidence into account and comes to a proper and just finding on why this aircraft crashed. The ball is in the CAS's court...oh, I'm beginning to see where you're coming from caz!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 17:41
  #5056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thor

The thing I'm most curious about at the moment is how and why they got that close. If they weren't actually intending to do something there, it seems incredulous, rather than negligent that they should have entered the cloud/fog/mist that they must have before impact.
It has happened before and will happen again. Even in the best regulated and equipped aircraft, airliners and all, people get nibbled to death by ducks as the old saying goes...........pilot error is not new -we have all been there done that, and got away with it. If you don't get away with it retribution (and judgement if you are not alive to take the retribution) can certainly follow.
bast0n is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 18:09
  #5057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
cazatou, I fail to see the problem with reconvening the BoI. Given that the BoI verdict was Cause Not Positively Determined, the current rank of the members should not be an issue: I am sure they would be glad to consider any new evidence.
The private opinions of two retired Air Officers should not therefore be of any relevance.
CarltonBrowne the FO is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 19:15
  #5058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Dalek
Cazatou in post #5101 above asked BOAC a fundamental question that, I believe, has great relevence here: <<WHY DID THE AIRCRAFT CAPTAIN NOT HAVE THE REGIONAL QNH SET ON HIS ALTIMETER? ... A simple question regarding something that is axiomatic for every Service Pilot who operates at low level. >>
As BOAC has insulted Cazatou previously as to his experience, it would be very nice if BOAC would answer this question fully, clearly, and honestly.
My answer is that the subscale setting on the handling pilot's altimeter just happened to be exactly right for the QFE at the elevation of that LZ – you know, so the altimeter reads zero at that ground level – fits in with a RADALT alarm being on minimum – looks like they were planning to land there.


As to the “commercial radio station”, Atlantic 252 had the most powerful transmitter around and therefore coverage (much better than Radio 4) and was widely listened to by trawlermen – just before the crash the station would have had the weather if not the actual shipping forecast (you get pressures off that!) – why not tune in? Again, it was not belting out pop music at the time of the crash – it was news and weather.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 19:40
  #5059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
dalek

Your Post 5107

It is patently obvious that you do not have access to a copy of the BOI nor have you actually read it in full at any time.

May I suggest that you obtain a copy and read it thoroughly, a course of action that would hopefully answer your queries. Alternatively you could call up from the archives all the previous parts of this thread covering some 8 years of posts and read through those.

Good Luck
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2009, 20:12
  #5060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Carlton Browne

You, like many others on this thread, fail to appreciate that the BOI is the AOC's BOI. In this particular case the BOI was convened by the then AOC 1Gp (AVM Day at that time). Air Officers Commanding are busy people and accidents do not happen at pre- arranged intervals; in fact the number of Unit Inquiries (Cat 1&2 damage) and Boards of Inquiry (Cat 3,4 & 5 damage and all accidents involving fatalities) was well into double figures at that time.

It would be impossible for any AOC to personally conduct all Unit Inquiries/ BOI's affecting his Group in addition to his normal duties. The team of a Wg Cdr President with a Sqn Ldr Pilot and an Flt Lt Eng Officer composed the Investigating Board which is the initial part of the BOI process. This team reported to the AOC.

After AOC 1Gp had completed his remarks the BOI was forwarded to HQSTC for staffing and review by AOC in C STC. Following this, and uniquely in my experience, the completed BOI was reviewed by CAS: no revision was made to the BOI Findings following either review.

Since that time a further 4 Chiefs of the Air Staff have been involved and none have seen fit to overturn the Findings.
cazatou 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.