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 11th Jul 2009, 14:44
  #5241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
Walter Kennedy:
At the level of the LZ, the "IMC" would typically have only been 10 metres or so off the slope and intermittent at that .......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.
Walter, the responsibility for starting, let alone continuing, such an approach is the Captain's alone. I'm not privy to heli ops, let alone SF heli ops so stand by to be corrected on this, but the fixed wing variant is that you cannot make an approach to a runway that is not visual unless that approach is in accordance with IFR, ie to an approved and licensed approach and landing aid, and even then the IRVR must be at or above your minima. Hangars visual, tower visual, surrounding landscape visual, but if the runway isn't and IRVR's are below your minima, no approach (or go around if a change since you commenced approach). That is surely where the planned "murder" theory falls down; captain realises LZ not visual so does not even start an approach, endex! Wacky radios, handheld or otherwise, may be a useful aid to locating a visual LZ, but that is all they are, not the sole means of getting to one through mist or cloud no matter how shallow that might be. I'm sorry, I just don't go for your scenario.

bast0n,
(2) OK, how?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 15:27
  #5242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek & Chgalug.

I note the lack of reasoned response, so may I remind you of the reason that led to my joining this discussion some three years ago. It was the allegation that:

1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.

Will you be good enough to confirm that this is your opinion?

A simple question, not 'on the one hand and on the other' but a simple YES OR NO

Regards. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 15:53
  #5243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
JP. Answer to question1: Yes. Answer to other questions; I don't know who knew what or what actions individuals took or didn't take. I am convinced that the reason this aircraft crashed has yet to be determined because the Accident Investigation conducted by the RAF at the time was woeful. That is why there should be a new, objective and fair investigation into every aspect of this tragedy. The main effect to my mind of the BoI/RO's efforts to date has been to obscure the lack of Airworthiness Regulation enforcement by the MOD. We know that since this crash there have been at least two other such tragedies (though I suspect even more) involving lack of airworthiness, accounting for a further 24 needless deaths. It is just possible if the airworthiness shortcomings of the MOD had been exposed by this BoI, those later deaths might have been avoided. I'm sure that this answer is unacceptable to you, like all my others. Too bad.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 17:12
  #5244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey,
1. Yes.

Before I answer any more of your questions, how about you getting off the fence for a change.

Simple Question:

Do you believe that the Boeing and SUPERTANS simulations provide a complete and fully accurate version of events of the Mull accident.

Simple question, simple yes / no.

Then you get my next answer.
dalek is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 17:13
  #5245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,337
John Purdey

As requested of you in post 5191, and to use your own words,

A simple question, not 'on the one hand and on the other' but a simple YES OR NO
Can you produce evidence, not just opinion, that supports the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" requirement in force at the time of the BoI?

To reiterate in your own words

a simple YES OR NO
is all that is required at the moment.

Thank you.
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 17:15
  #5246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug.

Not good enough.! You were much more straightforward in your 5216, where you said " Two junior officers' reputations were trashed to save the compromised reputations of their seniors.

Changed our minds have we?

You are making very serious allegations, but at least some consistency would be appropriate.

REgards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 17:23
  #5247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. My answer in 'no'. But nor is it necessary to know in great detail exactly what happened as the aircraft flew towards the Mull (for example, what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
What we do know is that they continued towards and then into the granite in weather that made such a venture highly negligent at the very least. They should not have been where they were in those conditions in the first place (see numerous earlier posts). Now please answer my question.
JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 17:49
  #5248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
JP, if you dealt honestly and sincerely with the main issues, ie was the RAF's finding justified, was the accident properly investigated, was the aircraft airworthy, instead of your tiresome habit of setting homework for people and rejecting their responses you would get more out of me and everyone else. Of course my reply is unacceptable, it was always going to be no matter how I replied to you. It is for others to judge both you and I in that exchange. Of course those involved in rushing an unairworthy aircraft type into service have reputations at risk if that aircraft subsequently suffers the worst unexplained peacetime RAF accident. So those reputations are secured, no matter how temporarily, when the fault is arbitrarily laid on the two pilots without any real proof, let alone beyond any doubt whatsoever as required by the RAF itself. By being found Grossly Negligent, I'd class those JO's reputations as trashed, wouldn't you? So how have I changed my mind? Of course my allegations are serious. 29 deaths are very serious and to date have not been properly explained. Time that someone somewhere did so.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 18:32
  #5249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug
You are long on verbiage, but lacking in focus and logic. As to serious allegations, it was you who made them, and you will not dare to go public with them, will you.
JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 19:02
  #5250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,337
John Purdey

Are you going to answer the simple YES/NO question at #5304 (you've made 3 posts since) or is it too difficult to answer?
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 19:15
  #5251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
JP in response to your point 1:
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
This extract from OC RWTS, Boscombe Down letter on the Channel 4 website, seems to indicate that this is the case:

5. While RWTS appreciate the effect that any delay in the programme will have on current theatres of operation and the associated political pressures this imposed, we consider that Boscombe Down is failing in its primary role of providing the Front Line with equipment which can not only efficiently carry out the role but do it safely.
I have transcribed this from the (admittedly blurred) letter on the C4 website, however JP I would be interested to know:

(1) If you agree that I have transcribed the paragraph accurately.
(2) This letter indicates that OC RWTS thought that the Mk2 Chinook was unsafe.

The line about 'political pressure' could also be interpreted as a 'Yes' to your point 2:
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
Interested as always in your thoughts.
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 19:51
  #5252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Wrathmonk

Perhaps JP (although I cannot speak for him) has placed you on his "ignore" list which would not, in my opinion, be surprising. Perhaps you could try a little courtesy?
cazatou is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 19:58
  #5253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 56
Posts: 1,990
I have deleted too, no problems

Last edited by jayteeto; 11th Jul 2009 at 22:36.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 20:07
  #5254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
jayteeto

If I have misinterpreted your PM then I sincerely apologise. I will delete that post.
cazatou is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 20:25
  #5255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
Chugalug
You are long on verbiage, but lacking in focus and logic. As to serious allegations, it was you who made them, and you will not dare to go public with them, will you.
JP
Whatever allegations I have made here JP are by definition "public" just as I made allegations that the Hercules and the Nimrod had been deprived of airworthiness by the UK Military Airworthiness Authority on their respective threads. My miserable contributions together with others that are similarly outraged about such scandal were but grains of sand in those campaigns yet both fleets have been or are being attended to. Thus it is with the Chinook Mk2 fleet, which I believe was unairworthy at the time of this accident. I have no illusions about my unimportance in all this, yet I feel compelled to go on fighting until proper Airworthiness Provision and proper Accident Investigation is once again provided for in UK Military Aviation. It is my firm belief that will not happen until both are wrested from the MOD and RAF respectively into what I choose to call a separate and independent MAA and MAAIB. There you are, JP, yet more verbiage for you to chew on!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 20:47
  #5256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,882
To conspire - "to combine secretly for an unlawful or wrongful act".


In a way, John Purdey is right, but not in the way he thinks.

Remove the word “secretly” and you have the perfect description of the actions of many involved in maintaining the airworthiness of the Mk1, and attaining the airworthiness of the Mk2.

Bottom line – they avoided an obligation to the Secretary of State for Defence by knowingly compromising airworthiness in the years before and after Mull. And, John, to address one of your questions, the current SofS is aware of this, and content.

In their supreme arrogance, MoD does not deny this, but flaunts it. (And, as I said, CDP said as much to the HCDC when asked specifically about Chinook). But, case by case, they are being exposed and losing in the courts. Nimrod. C130. Next…………?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 21:13
  #5257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey,
I thought we were doing simple yes / no.
Less of the "waffle" please.
2. I don,t know.

My next question;
Were all the "facts" given By Wratten and Day to HOL genuine provable "facts".

Simple yes / know. Honest "don't know" acceptable response.

I will then answer Q3 to the best of my ability.
dalek is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2009, 22:01
  #5258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
JP

nor is it necessary to know in great detail exactly what happened as the aircraft flew towards the Mull (for example, what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
Well, it may do. It may not. But we shall never know, shall we, because data/voice recorders were never fitted, although they had been recommended years before.

But in your world, (and that of cazatou K52) where the rules in place at the time; of satisfying the standard of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever', were just an inconvenience, which could simply be 'down graded'...

Where 'models' can be read as fact. Where 'absence of evidence' may be taken as 'evidence of absence'. Where lack of relevant disclosure is endemic. Where only a small proportion of the aircraft remains. Where there are no survivors testimonies. No 'eye' witnesses. No recordings of any kind.

Of course it wouldn't matter. Would it?
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 07:35
  #5259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Caz. Your 5311; correct. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2009, 08:48
  #5260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey.
Your 5306
You asked five questions. I have answered the first two.
Now answer my second.

Yes / no / don't know.
No "waffle please"
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.