Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Chugalug.
..... " Not only bent on covering up the culpability of the CoC in foisting a known unairworthy aircraft type into service, the RAF then stitches up two JO's to cover their tracks with fabricated "modelling" of non-evidence."
So it was a conspiracy. Why do you not go public? I'm sure that many 'major' newspapers would be only too pleased to get their hands on a scandal of that scale; failing that, then 'Private Eye 'would probably do so. Of course, you would have to give your real name, and to be sure of your facts.
Now there is a challenge for you. Are you up to it? Otherwise, please spare us these allegations.
..... " Not only bent on covering up the culpability of the CoC in foisting a known unairworthy aircraft type into service, the RAF then stitches up two JO's to cover their tracks with fabricated "modelling" of non-evidence."
So it was a conspiracy. Why do you not go public? I'm sure that many 'major' newspapers would be only too pleased to get their hands on a scandal of that scale; failing that, then 'Private Eye 'would probably do so. Of course, you would have to give your real name, and to be sure of your facts.
Now there is a challenge for you. Are you up to it? Otherwise, please spare us these allegations.
Last edited by John Purdey; 11th Jul 2009 at 08:29.
bast0n:
and nobody is denying you that bast0n, but when you express them you should expect a reaction, good bad or indifferent. Your opinion seemed outrageous to me, in that on essentially circumstantial evidence propped up with some very suspect modelling of some very suspect technical evidence, two senior officers come up with a finding of Gross Negligence against two deceased junior officers. You seem to endorse that by saying they were probably right in their finding as being right in "the balance of probability" if not "beyond all doubt". The first is irrelevant even if it were true. As RAF Officers, of whatever rank, they were required to ensure that their finding was in accordance with RAF regulations. It wasn't. So how can it then stand? If I have misrepresented or misunderstood your opinion then I am sorry. Have I?
Chuggaz
OOO ERR!
I was only answering Brians question - not starting WW3!
We are allowed opinions you know.
OOO ERR!
I was only answering Brians question - not starting WW3!
We are allowed opinions you know.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug 2
I find your opinions, as expressed in your most recent posts, not only outrageous - but also potentially libellous. It would appear that you think that anyone who disagrees with your point of view in respect of this tragedy is part of a wide ranging conspiracy to divert attention from the nefarious (or even nefandous) activities (in your opinion) of the two Air Marshals in order to cast blame on the two deceased Pilots who are (in your opinion) totally blameless.
I used to stress to the Pilots I trained on 32 SQN that the most important ability a VIP Pilot could have was the ability to say "NO" if the situation so required. Regrettably, the 2 Pilots involved in this tragedy do not appear to have considered that option. Nobody imposed that routing on them - it was their choice. Nobody insisted that they had to do that task at the end of a strenuous day - it was their choice. A simple crew rearrangment could have put one experienced Captain with the newly qualified Captain and the other experienced Captain with the Navigator for the days tasking. That would also have given the second crew ample time to consider other possible routings in view of the weather and negated any potential crew duty problems.
I find your opinions, as expressed in your most recent posts, not only outrageous - but also potentially libellous. It would appear that you think that anyone who disagrees with your point of view in respect of this tragedy is part of a wide ranging conspiracy to divert attention from the nefarious (or even nefandous) activities (in your opinion) of the two Air Marshals in order to cast blame on the two deceased Pilots who are (in your opinion) totally blameless.
I used to stress to the Pilots I trained on 32 SQN that the most important ability a VIP Pilot could have was the ability to say "NO" if the situation so required. Regrettably, the 2 Pilots involved in this tragedy do not appear to have considered that option. Nobody imposed that routing on them - it was their choice. Nobody insisted that they had to do that task at the end of a strenuous day - it was their choice. A simple crew rearrangment could have put one experienced Captain with the newly qualified Captain and the other experienced Captain with the Navigator for the days tasking. That would also have given the second crew ample time to consider other possible routings in view of the weather and negated any potential crew duty problems.
Well, we seem to be bogged down in an evaluation of opinions quagmire caz. In many ways I find that more honest than the quasi civilised exchanges that have peculiarly featured in this thread between those who stand by the BoI and the ROs' findings and those who find them unacceptable. Given the finding amounted to one of manslaughter and given that it was based on interpretations of what little evidence that survived the crash and given that it plainly contradicted some of the evidence given to the BoI and given that pertinent evidence was neither sort by or given to the BoI I find such restraint unnatural to say the least. I believe that the BoI and the RO's finding amounted to a cover up of the known unairworthiness of this Chinook Mk2, and every other one at that time come to that. It may well be that the cover up was felt necessary because of the scale and nature of this accident and the political sensitivities surrounding it and the Peace Process. If so that may well explain it but does not justify it. That finding destroyed the reputations of two Junior Officers and did so in contradiction of RAF Regulations that applied to the ROs as it did to all RAF personnel. BTW I have never said that the pilots were blameless. Why? Because I just don't know caz, that's why! Your second para is irrelevant. Why? Because it is based on suppositions, just like the Ro's finding, that are unsupported by facts. Because you just don't know caz, that's why!
bast0n:
OK, how?
bast0n:
Yup.
That would also have given the second crew ample time to consider other possible routings in view of the weather and negated any potential crew duty problems.
I find your opinions, as expressed in your most recent posts, not only outrageous - but also potentially libellous.
Of course, two junior Officers' representatives cannot sue W&D (and their acolytes) for slander, beacuse the dead cannot sue.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chugalug2 <<... an IFR letdown in IMC.... >>
Not with my understanding of the weather it wasn't - have you not read my numerous posts on the weather? At the level of the LZ, the "IMC" would typically have only been 10 metres or so off the slope and intermittent at that - they were not in it until the last seconds.
The basis of my scenario is that visual judgement of the closing range would have been difficult - if they had had an accurate measurement of range continuously available, then they should have been down to a speed at which they could wave off safely if they could not see the ground clearly enough at the threshold of the LZ - I do not believe that a responsible crew would have gone in there without believing that they had accurate range - I believe that they thought they had but were misled wilfully or by error on the part of the personnel on the ground.
Not with my understanding of the weather it wasn't - have you not read my numerous posts on the weather? At the level of the LZ, the "IMC" would typically have only been 10 metres or so off the slope and intermittent at that - they were not in it until the last seconds.
The basis of my scenario is that visual judgement of the closing range would have been difficult - if they had had an accurate measurement of range continuously available, then they should have been down to a speed at which they could wave off safely if they could not see the ground clearly enough at the threshold of the LZ - I do not believe that a responsible crew would have gone in there without believing that they had accurate range - I believe that they thought they had but were misled wilfully or by error on the part of the personnel on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
Oh, and while I'm at it <<...into an LZ with very high terrain all around, ...>> - why not take a few days break and go see the area from the direction they were approaching, the Mull occupied only Ό of their horizon to their right an isolated low hill easy to avoid if they had not good reason to approach it very closely.
And this <<but some bloke wandering around the Mull slopes, with a backpack, not at the LZ because he himself is a little uncertain of his position due to fog? >> - the track to the LZ is well defined with a small area of tarmac where vehicles could turn; on the day, with the level of the start of the mist as reported, anyone standing on that LZ should have been able to get a visual on the light house frequently enough to know where he was standing what kind of people do you think would have thehand sets?
Pulse1
<<We do have on record the testimony of Witness A, a very experienced SH Chinook pilot: >> - who was referring back to the BOI and therefore perhaps mindful of contadicting it regarding an aspect that he may have not considered, that would have been hard to address when put on the spot. Perhaps we should be pushing such pilots to open discussion here? - as you rightly wrote <<... it is a pity that more crews from that period can't enlighten us about this and some of the airworthiness issues.>>.
Now that for bit you wrote <<Other than that, all I can say is that, when you are given information that doesn't fit your theories, e.g. by jayteeto and tandemrotor, you tend to ignore it. >> - well, I came to this site way back to exchange ideas and get information and there is no doubt that I and others have been wrong on several points as this debate has matured and so much has been covered over the years, I wonder what information have I been given, by say jayteeto and tandemrotor, that refutes any significant aspect of the scenario that I have been putting forward lately? If you can repeat those points or better get those guys to revisit the debate it may be educational to all of us.
Oh, and while I'm at it <<...into an LZ with very high terrain all around, ...>> - why not take a few days break and go see the area from the direction they were approaching, the Mull occupied only Ό of their horizon to their right an isolated low hill easy to avoid if they had not good reason to approach it very closely.
And this <<but some bloke wandering around the Mull slopes, with a backpack, not at the LZ because he himself is a little uncertain of his position due to fog? >> - the track to the LZ is well defined with a small area of tarmac where vehicles could turn; on the day, with the level of the start of the mist as reported, anyone standing on that LZ should have been able to get a visual on the light house frequently enough to know where he was standing what kind of people do you think would have thehand sets?
Pulse1
<<We do have on record the testimony of Witness A, a very experienced SH Chinook pilot: >> - who was referring back to the BOI and therefore perhaps mindful of contadicting it regarding an aspect that he may have not considered, that would have been hard to address when put on the spot. Perhaps we should be pushing such pilots to open discussion here? - as you rightly wrote <<... it is a pity that more crews from that period can't enlighten us about this and some of the airworthiness issues.>>.
Now that for bit you wrote <<Other than that, all I can say is that, when you are given information that doesn't fit your theories, e.g. by jayteeto and tandemrotor, you tend to ignore it. >> - well, I came to this site way back to exchange ideas and get information and there is no doubt that I and others have been wrong on several points as this debate has matured and so much has been covered over the years, I wonder what information have I been given, by say jayteeto and tandemrotor, that refutes any significant aspect of the scenario that I have been putting forward lately? If you can repeat those points or better get those guys to revisit the debate it may be educational to all of us.
Last edited by walter kennedy; 11th Jul 2009 at 09:31. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outrageous and Libellous
This coming from a man who has accused dead aircrew, with no ability to defend themselves of:
1. Not eating breakfast. Wrong.
2. Inadequate planning. Unproven.
3. Planning to exceed crew duty. Unproven.
3. Listening to music to the detriment of their duties. Wrong.
If the crew were my family, I know who I would have in court.
Now lets take a look at the RO's and there Staffs.
1. They selected the BOI.
2. They "manipulated", the choice of witnesses.
( You have said yourself CAZ, that they decided on the relevance of evidence.)
3.. When the BOI failed to find the required verdict, they reversed the decision. They based this decision on flawed computer simulations.
4. They presented these simulations to HOL as "Facts." Since they clearly knew they were not facts, that was dishonest.
In any other court in the land such manipulation would be regarded as:
"Perverting the Couse of Justice."
The mehods used by the AM,s to obtain their verdict would fit in perfectly in Iran or North Korea, but has no place in this country.
So sue me.
1. Not eating breakfast. Wrong.
2. Inadequate planning. Unproven.
3. Planning to exceed crew duty. Unproven.
3. Listening to music to the detriment of their duties. Wrong.
If the crew were my family, I know who I would have in court.
Now lets take a look at the RO's and there Staffs.
1. They selected the BOI.
2. They "manipulated", the choice of witnesses.
( You have said yourself CAZ, that they decided on the relevance of evidence.)
3.. When the BOI failed to find the required verdict, they reversed the decision. They based this decision on flawed computer simulations.
4. They presented these simulations to HOL as "Facts." Since they clearly knew they were not facts, that was dishonest.
In any other court in the land such manipulation would be regarded as:
"Perverting the Couse of Justice."
The mehods used by the AM,s to obtain their verdict would fit in perfectly in Iran or North Korea, but has no place in this country.
So sue me.
John Purdey
Trying to catch up as Ive been away, but you seem to be objecting to 2 statements;
On the first point, CDP (4 Star) stated as much to the HCDC in 1999. The Committee did not challenge his statement, as it appears both they and CDP had ample evidence to support this fact. In my experience it is wise to simply accept these simple truths.
As for fabrication read, for example, the Collins report. It lists MoDs lies in great detail (although it could do with updating to add the more recent ones). And what is the only reason for lying? To hide the truth.
Perhaps CDP was lying to the HCDC? (He wasnt). Perhaps he readily admitted this failing hoping greater ones, by his seniors, would not be explored? (They werent). Not unlike MoDs actions at the Nimrod and C130 inquests.
Best wishes
Trying to catch up as Ive been away, but you seem to be objecting to 2 statements;
- The MoD knew the airworthiness regulations had not been implemented correctly prior to, at and subsequent to the Mk2 RTS.
- There was some misrepresentation of the facts by MoD.
On the first point, CDP (4 Star) stated as much to the HCDC in 1999. The Committee did not challenge his statement, as it appears both they and CDP had ample evidence to support this fact. In my experience it is wise to simply accept these simple truths.
As for fabrication read, for example, the Collins report. It lists MoDs lies in great detail (although it could do with updating to add the more recent ones). And what is the only reason for lying? To hide the truth.
Perhaps CDP was lying to the HCDC? (He wasnt). Perhaps he readily admitted this failing hoping greater ones, by his seniors, would not be explored? (They werent). Not unlike MoDs actions at the Nimrod and C130 inquests.
Best wishes
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheAerosCo
RE your post #5271
There should have been radar data available from Lowther Hill which had both secondary and primary radar relayed back to ScotMil which could have been of great value in analysisng this crash I have run a propagation model for an a/c at 500ft crossing from NI coast up to the Mull and got direct line of sight coverage right up to the Mull further, I have given an example (years back) on this thread of contact with Lowther Hill radar for an Islander (air ambulance) that crashed into the sea a lot further away (to the west of Mac aerodrome) and arguably one would have thought that a broadside Chinook would have had just as big if not bigger radar cross section than an Islander further again, I have referred to an article written by a reputable journalist soon after the crash; he was adamant that his source was in a position to know at ScotMil and that he said that he had seen recordings of the flight wherein it appeared that the a/c had been going straight in to the Mull; however, when I first brought up the question of radar on this thread it was in the context of what had been the squawk code as I thought it would have cleared up the question of the unusual squawk code found set initially, I was ridiculed as it was said that Aldergrove had no secondary radar at the time and places like Tiree (?) were too far but no mention was made of Lowther Hill when I did the research and brought up the article by the jounalist someone on this thread threw in the red herring that Prestwick Aerodrome would not have had the coverage, again without mentioning Lowther Hill; when I did the further research on the coverage of Lowther Hill the existence of recordings was flatly denied by people who said that they had either been there at the time or had looked at all relevent recordings and had seen nothing of ZD576.
Little wonder I do not accept many rebuttals at face value.
By the way, with reference to the Boeing analysis I rather thought that Mitchell did point out assumptions and tried to estimate error windows at any rate a useful framework to add one's own calculations to. The fundamentally important position where the waypoint was changed, as I recall from memory just now, was derived principally from the range and bearing to waypoint B that the SuperTANS had stored at the point of changing waypoint; so, the accuracy of the position of waypoint change is as accurate as the SuperTANS was at that point after a sea crossing, the (Doppler/GPS nav computer) SuperTANS could be expected to have significant error but we do have a fixed point not that long after the position of waypoint change and that point was the impact position retrospectively, it was deduced that the SuperTANS had been reasonably accurate in the latter stages of the flight sadly, a retrospective that the pilots would not have had and so would have not viewed the SuperTANS as precise if it contradicted a local reference when closely approaching the Mull.
Regarding the rest of the reconstruction of the whole track, Mitchel's time/distance caculations had it (quite reasonably, I think) that the a/c could not have done much else other than to have made a bee line from Aldergrove to the position of waypoint change at the high cruising speed makes it a lot easier? Aldergrove VOR 027 radial (at the time) would (extrapolated, of course, with the SuperTANS) have taken you exactly to the LZ that I have referred to so to get there with the SuperTANS ('cause you wouldn't have had the VOR that far at their height) you would need a terminating waypoint there and if you read off your chart to nice roundy figures you get the coords that were waypoint A. It is reasonable to assume that their cruise speed (in terms of air speed) would have remained constant from the ATC fix to the position of waypoint change and so you can work backwards for that long leg using your best estimates for wind and see if it all fits together as Mitchell did.
RE your post #5271
There should have been radar data available from Lowther Hill which had both secondary and primary radar relayed back to ScotMil which could have been of great value in analysisng this crash I have run a propagation model for an a/c at 500ft crossing from NI coast up to the Mull and got direct line of sight coverage right up to the Mull further, I have given an example (years back) on this thread of contact with Lowther Hill radar for an Islander (air ambulance) that crashed into the sea a lot further away (to the west of Mac aerodrome) and arguably one would have thought that a broadside Chinook would have had just as big if not bigger radar cross section than an Islander further again, I have referred to an article written by a reputable journalist soon after the crash; he was adamant that his source was in a position to know at ScotMil and that he said that he had seen recordings of the flight wherein it appeared that the a/c had been going straight in to the Mull; however, when I first brought up the question of radar on this thread it was in the context of what had been the squawk code as I thought it would have cleared up the question of the unusual squawk code found set initially, I was ridiculed as it was said that Aldergrove had no secondary radar at the time and places like Tiree (?) were too far but no mention was made of Lowther Hill when I did the research and brought up the article by the jounalist someone on this thread threw in the red herring that Prestwick Aerodrome would not have had the coverage, again without mentioning Lowther Hill; when I did the further research on the coverage of Lowther Hill the existence of recordings was flatly denied by people who said that they had either been there at the time or had looked at all relevent recordings and had seen nothing of ZD576.
Little wonder I do not accept many rebuttals at face value.
By the way, with reference to the Boeing analysis I rather thought that Mitchell did point out assumptions and tried to estimate error windows at any rate a useful framework to add one's own calculations to. The fundamentally important position where the waypoint was changed, as I recall from memory just now, was derived principally from the range and bearing to waypoint B that the SuperTANS had stored at the point of changing waypoint; so, the accuracy of the position of waypoint change is as accurate as the SuperTANS was at that point after a sea crossing, the (Doppler/GPS nav computer) SuperTANS could be expected to have significant error but we do have a fixed point not that long after the position of waypoint change and that point was the impact position retrospectively, it was deduced that the SuperTANS had been reasonably accurate in the latter stages of the flight sadly, a retrospective that the pilots would not have had and so would have not viewed the SuperTANS as precise if it contradicted a local reference when closely approaching the Mull.
Regarding the rest of the reconstruction of the whole track, Mitchel's time/distance caculations had it (quite reasonably, I think) that the a/c could not have done much else other than to have made a bee line from Aldergrove to the position of waypoint change at the high cruising speed makes it a lot easier? Aldergrove VOR 027 radial (at the time) would (extrapolated, of course, with the SuperTANS) have taken you exactly to the LZ that I have referred to so to get there with the SuperTANS ('cause you wouldn't have had the VOR that far at their height) you would need a terminating waypoint there and if you read off your chart to nice roundy figures you get the coords that were waypoint A. It is reasonable to assume that their cruise speed (in terms of air speed) would have remained constant from the ATC fix to the position of waypoint change and so you can work backwards for that long leg using your best estimates for wind and see if it all fits together as Mitchell did.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
<<The mehods used by the AM,s to obtain their verdict would fit in perfectly in Iran or North Korea, but has no place in this country.>>
Would that this were true.
WMD & Dr David Kelly just for starters.
Perhaps you need a reality adjustment?
<<The mehods used by the AM,s to obtain their verdict would fit in perfectly in Iran or North Korea, but has no place in this country.>>
Would that this were true.
WMD & Dr David Kelly just for starters.
Perhaps you need a reality adjustment?
1,2,3,4, Let them wait outside the door...5,6,7,8, Does them good to stand and wait! Come! Ah, JP, sorry to keep you waiting but all our operators have been extremely busy, hope you liked the Mozart, catchy isn't it? Now where were we, ah yes, the prologue..
Glad to see you've taken my call for a bit more edge into account, JP. Good first effort, particularly like the repetition of "up", but we know another word that JP could have used with "up" to describe this affair, don't we boys and girls? That's right! So your post 5278:
I'm particularly interested in your use of the word "conspiracy" JP, your word not mine! I point out that the BoI ignored known airworthiness problems of the Chinook Mk2 (or more correctly included a one line reference, and then ignored them). Similarly it asked one question of their only witness to en-route weather, got the "wrong" answer (ie that he could see both the Chinook that was bathed in sunlight, and the Mull coastline). Even so the BoI failed to come up with the "robust" finding required of it which was then imposed by the RO's, without mention of the two discrepancies above, indeed they substituted their "knowledge" of the weather which was at variance to that of the BoI, suggesting that witnesses on the Mull where it was indisputably IMC provided proof of conditions away from the Mull. The "robust" finding was of course to find that both pilots were Grossly Negligent, a satisfactory outcome for both the MOD (the Airworthiness Authority responsible for the Airworthiness of the aircraft, and the RAF (the Operator, which had pushed it into Squadron Service). What I find interesting is that you see my construction above as tantamount to being a conspiracy, yet Walter's (sorry Walter, merely for illustrative purposes) version that a clandestine landing had been authorised and possibly an associated and hence presumably successful Mass Murder perpetrated is not so labelled, even by your chums (you know, the "many folk" that you have mentioned before?). One getting too close to reality perhaps? Oh, that's another thing, when you get rattled you accuse me and others of hiding behind our identities. Are you saying that you really are "John Purdey"? Thing is I can't find anyone of that name in my RAF List, though it is the 1982 edition!
Chugalug.... put up or shut up. JP
Chugalug.
..... " Not only bent on covering up the culpability of the CoC in foisting a known unairworthy aircraft type into service, the RAF then stitches up two JO's to cover their tracks with fabricated "modelling" of non-evidence."
So it was a conspiracy. Why do you not go public? I'm sure that many 'major' newspapers would be only too pleased to get their hands on a scandal of that scale; failing that, then 'Private Eye 'would probably do so. Of course, you would have to give your real name, and to be sure of your facts.
Now there is a challenge for you. Are you up to it? Otherwise, please spare us these allegations.
..... " Not only bent on covering up the culpability of the CoC in foisting a known unairworthy aircraft type into service, the RAF then stitches up two JO's to cover their tracks with fabricated "modelling" of non-evidence."
So it was a conspiracy. Why do you not go public? I'm sure that many 'major' newspapers would be only too pleased to get their hands on a scandal of that scale; failing that, then 'Private Eye 'would probably do so. Of course, you would have to give your real name, and to be sure of your facts.
Now there is a challenge for you. Are you up to it? Otherwise, please spare us these allegations.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Dalek and Gugalug. Spare us the waffle; why do you not take your allegations to either an investigative journalist, or to the present SoFS.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Is that so difficult to understand?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
I note there is never any complaint when Cazatou makes his "Outrageous and Libellous" remarks.
Forgive me if I pay no attention whatsoever to your opinions.
I note there is never any complaint when Cazatou makes his "Outrageous and Libellous" remarks.
Forgive me if I pay no attention whatsoever to your opinions.
