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 16th Jul 2009, 13:01
  #5321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
BOAC

I think I understand your frustration..........it works both ways!

It appears that in all probability, part of the Mull was visible at WPT change. That, I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence.We know it continued towards the Mull and crashed in cloud. The gap here is what happened between those two events. It could have been 'gross negligence' indeed, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That was the requirement for judgement. It was not followed.
The moot point is "what happened between these two events" - with no evidence to the contrary
I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence
that nothing happened. They just made a fatal error of judgement.

Further
and was there sufficient proof of deliberate action
- No - but does there have to be? In-action is more likely on the evidence. No one does this sort of thing on purpose
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 13:58
  #5322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
bast0n:
The moot point is "what happened between these two events" - with no evidence to the contrary
Sorry, bast0n, not quite with you there. To the contrary of what? To the finding? Well, if so that's the whole point! It was arrived at in that very manner, with no evidence (to the contrary of loss of control for example). The whole RAF BoI review system seems to rely on the basis that SO's are infallible because they are...SO's. Once they have made such a ruling it must not be overturned because of "Command Integrity". I'm sorry, but you cannot run Accident Investigation on that basis. This aircraft crashed for a reason. Whatever that reason was, one thing is clear to me, that reason has yet to be properly discovered by the RAF. Neither the BoI nor the RO's did so. One senior officer backed up by his seniors, coming up with a reason on the basis of "modelling", disregarding some evidence, constructing cloud extent, using the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence doesn't come close to the standards required.
Fitter2 draws our attention to the standards of Flight Safety taken almost for granted in civil aviation when you buy a ticket to fly. Would you have such confidence if the Chief Pilot of BA was the final arbiter of why his 777 landed with a crump in the LHR undershoot? Would its unique problems of icing in the engine fuel delivery system have been discovered, as it was by the AAIB? Far more likely that yet two more pilots would have taken the rap. This finding is unacceptable. This system is unacceptable. Both must be changed.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 14:17
  #5323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
CHUGAZ

Sorry, bast0n, not quite with you there. To the contrary of what? To the finding?
Sorry if I was not clear.

If there is no evidence as to what happened between the two occurrences, waypoint and impact - and there is not - anyone can try to insert any and every scenario that crosses their mind. (and looking at lots of posts that is exactly what is happening). If there is no evidence can we not surmise that nothing happened? Just a mistake as I have said before?
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 14:34
  #5324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Thank you for coming back so promptly bast0n, and apologies BOAC for jumping in on a post directed to you. I will attempt to jump out of the way again ASAP!
If there is no evidence can we not surmise that nothing happened?
Brief answer, bast0n, no! No surmising at all would be a very good rule of thumb to adhere to anyway in Aircraft Accident Investigations, but certainly where you are constrained by regulation to be right "beyond all doubt whatsoever". Sorry, I know your attitude to the latter, but neither you nor I (nor W&D!) decide these things, the Air Board does it seems, and did!

Last edited by Chugalug2; 16th Jul 2009 at 14:44. Reason: Words dear boy, words!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 15:02
  #5325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Chugaz

No surmising at all would be a very good rule of thumb to adhere to
Well yes - but is not that exactly what lots of people here are trying to do - insert possibilities into the gap between air and impact...........?
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 15:16
  #5326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Well perhaps bast0n, but that simply shows that there were many possible permutations of what actually happened, other than the RO's finding. If you have a feeble accident investigation topped off with an arbitrary finding based on a "model" then this is what you get. 15 years of alternative solutions! Unlike the BoI or the RO's findings this forum is not a formal accident investigation and is thus not constrained by the rules that they (in theory at least) were bound by. Yet I would suggest that more has emerged here, at the FAI and especially at the HoL than was ever considered or revealed by the BoI or RO's. That is not a judgement on those who post here. That is a judgement on the BoI, the RO's and the RAF!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 15:28
  #5327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Chugaz



Well yes - but is not that exactly what lots of people here are trying to do - insert possibilities into the gap between air and impact...........?
Is that not what the RO's have done
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 16:40
  #5328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Mr Purdey,

I am not seeking your help, merely your opinion:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
I would also welcome the view of Bast0n & Caz on this matter.
8-15fromOdium is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 16:59
  #5329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
8-15 from odiam

Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?
No from me. Not relevant to the final moments.
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 17:29
  #5330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
8-15fromodium. No from me, as well JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 17:40
  #5331 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Well yes - but is not that exactly what lots of people here are trying to do - insert possibilities into the gap between air and impact...........?
- I'm not! I don't think anyone else is claiming absolute knowledge either - apart from you three and the ROs..
BOAC is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 17:44
  #5332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
8-15 from odiam
Quote:
Do you think that the BoI needed to consider how the Chinook Mk2 was certified airworthy?

No from me. Not relevant to the final moments.

Safety is relevant to all aspects of aviation. The CA Release and Release to Service are products of the Safety Management System, as applied to aircraft.

The BoI process is an aspect of aviation safety management, playing a vital role in identifying problems and preventing recurrence.

The Secretary of State mandates safety management shall be carried forward through service to the disposal phase.

That there were failures in the mandated Safety Management System as it applied to Chinook Mk2 is beyond doubt; MoD has admitted it. For example, CDP when giving evidence to the HCDC in 1999.

MoD has stated airworthiness was not in the BoIís remit. Therefore, unless delegated elsewhere, it rests with the convening officer. Has anyone seen his report on the subject?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 18:26
  #5333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
BOAC


I don't think anyone else is claiming absolute knowledge either - apart from you three and the ROs
Please read all my posts and you will see that I do not, and never have claimed absolute knowledge. That is as silly as "beyond all doubt".

Oh - perhaps I am not one of "you three" and should not be answering...
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 18:55
  #5334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Cazatou,

For the first time in my life I have some sympathy with JP. We are making enough circles for several Olympic flags.

1. Read again our long "debate" on forecast v actual.

2. Lighthouse certain IFR. Crash site almost certain IFR.

3. Two to three miles from the coast probable VFR.

4&5. Very little evidence of a technical malfunction. ( Before you say none whatsoever read Burke and Witness A again at HOL.)
Also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a technical malfunction did not take place.
You need an ADR and CVR for that. Not a TANS or Boeing simulation.

Bast0n,

Feel free to quote back at me whenever you like but do so accurately. I never use bold.
dalek is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 19:24
  #5335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 70
Posts: 764
Chaps,

This thread is getting so very tortuos.

I have said before that there are only two people alive who know with "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" what happened on that fateful day: Wratten and Day.

There are many people on this thread who believe/think/surmise/postulate etc, etc about possible influencing events ranging from extra-terrestial infulences to a bee sting and, of course, including airworthiness. All such theorising is a total irrelevancy in this case. I, too, have my theory - but that is also irrelevant, only fact is relevant.

Is there anyone out there who will categorically state on this thread that they know, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, what happened that day?

If so, could they please make the statement and, more importantly back it up with fact and not supposition?
1.3VStall is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 19:42
  #5336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
DALEK

Feel free to quote back at me whenever you like but do so accurately. I never use bold.
I was emphasising a point. I apologise if it upset you - but pretty trivial in the overall scheme of things.

1.3VStall

absolutely no doubt whatsoever
Not a scenario that can ever be played out practically in any aspect of life - therefore a meaningless aspiration. As I have said before - several times - there can never be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", so why keep going there?
bast0n is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 20:03
  #5337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
1.3Vstall.

You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.

As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of theml. That failure was the negligence.

Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 20:31
  #5338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
So the basis of the RO's finding, JP, is a negative. Because the aircraft wasn't turned away from running into the mist shrouded hillside the pilots were Grossly Negligent? Is that the RAF's case? To make that stick the RO's had to be content that the aircraft could have been turned away. An aircraft type with a history of jammed flight controls, wreckage in which all the control springs were detached from the control pallet, wreckage in which the pedals were 70 degrees hard over. Now those facts don't prove that they couldn't turn away, but how on earth do they prove, along with everything else, that they could beyond all doubt?
This roundabout will keep on turning I'm afraid!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 21:17
  #5339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by John Purdey View Post
1.3Vstall.

You are absolutely right of course, except that tedious is an understatement.

As to what happened between waypoint change and the granite hillside, again we shall never know; but we DO KNOW what did NOT HAPPEN, ie the crew DID NOT turn away from the cloud-covered hills ahead of them and we simply do not know why. We suspect That failure was the negligence but we cannot say so with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Shall we now call a halt to this roundabout? JP
There now, that reads as a better reflection of what we actually know.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2009, 21:20
  #5340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chugalug2. I thought as much; we are now back to the belief that in the last few seconds the controls jammed in all three axes, together with the power controls, and the R/T failed, and yet the aircraft entered a climb, which, had it been on track, would have meant it cleared the hills ahead by a few hundred feet.
If you really believe that, then be my guest, but I will now leave you to explain it. Regards.
JP
John Purdey 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.