Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Walter, I have no reason to doubt that "the equipment" as you describe it exists and is accomodated into the Chinook with the ease and speed with which you tell us. But I'm afraid that caz is quite right you know, if the scenario that you describe had occurred then the RO's finding effectively stands (not withstanding that it was itself in contravention of RAF regulations). Both JP and you have come to variations of the same lack of airmanship. He proposes that they miscalculated their position such that a "cowboy" climb into IMC caused them to crash instead of clearing the hilltop, and you propose that they miscalculated their position by putting all their faith into "the equipment" before making a "cowboy" high speed approach into an IMC obscured LZ, causing them to crash. Whoever the person might be with the handheld gizmo and wherever he was and regardless of his intent, the responsibility for making such an approach lay solely with one person, the aircraft captain. Someone more qualified than I in SH Ops should really respond, but that's my take and my attempt to answer your question:
Everything, I would suggest.
What have you got to lose?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baston,
All of the "facts".
A radar fix followed by a hole in the ground 20 minutes later.
I between a "fairy story" based on Boeing and SUPERTANS simulations.
Even John Purdy has admitted there are no "facts" there.
The, (according to Caz), idiots on the HOL committee were bright enough to spot this. As an old bold pilot why aren't you?
UFCM, Power Interrupt, Visual Illusion, Spatial Disorientation et al. They also fit the "facts."
There are no other "facts."
All of the "facts".
A radar fix followed by a hole in the ground 20 minutes later.
I between a "fairy story" based on Boeing and SUPERTANS simulations.
Even John Purdy has admitted there are no "facts" there.
The, (according to Caz), idiots on the HOL committee were bright enough to spot this. As an old bold pilot why aren't you?
UFCM, Power Interrupt, Visual Illusion, Spatial Disorientation et al. They also fit the "facts."
There are no other "facts."
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It does but Pilot Error does seem to fit all the known facts however because we simply do not know what happened aircraft unservicability, based on evidence recovered at the crash site, cannot be completely ruled out."
then that, surely would have been a truer reflection of known facts?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information given to the BOI, HOL etc would then be missing clearly relevant information. With that in mind, the original verdicts would have to be overturned.
If it were true, though, this scenario makes it more likely that negligence occurred. At least I could understand why they were approaching the Mull.
It would also give the MOD another witness to the events, who would have been able to give a very informed view on whether negligence was the cause.
And that might be the root of why they are set on maintaining the verdict, because they would actually know, even if they couldn't tell for some reason.
Without this scenario, it seems incredulous they would have been anywhere near the Mull.
Just my 2p - I'd still have expected someone to have blown the whistle by now if it was the case.
TN
Olive Oil:
Not quite Olive;
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew an unairworthy aircraft into the ground whilst IFR. I suspect that "they were trying to fly an unairworthy aircraft to avoid it flying into the ground whilst IFR, but failed", would be nearer the mark. How on earth do you conclude that the overwhelming evidence is that the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed?
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew a serviceable aircraft into the ground whilst IFR.
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew an unairworthy aircraft into the ground whilst IFR. I suspect that "they were trying to fly an unairworthy aircraft to avoid it flying into the ground whilst IFR, but failed", would be nearer the mark. How on earth do you conclude that the overwhelming evidence is that the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olive Oil
Yup. That's what I have been saying.
Ghugaz
Unairworthy maybe - but unserviceable? Where do you get that from? Also why were they in IMC in the first place? We are getting back to the story that somehow this aircraft had a will of it's own, and there is no evidence for that scenario.
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew a serviceable aircraft into the ground whilst IFR.
Ghugaz
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew an unairworthy aircraft into the ground whilst IFR. I suspect that "they were trying to fly an unairworthy aircraft to avoid it flying into the ground whilst IFR, but failed", would be nearer the mark. How on earth do you conclude that the overwhelming evidence is that the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed?
We are getting back to the story that somehow this aircraft had a will of it's own, and there is no evidence for that scenario.
But there is sufficient evidence of other Chinooks having a 'mind of their own', both flight controls and FADEC, to include it as a possibility.
There is no direct evidence available of a deliberate cover up either, but there is enough circumstantial evidence from the behaviour of some of those close to MOD at the time to make one wonder.
bast0n:
Nowhere, bast0n, have I ever said that the aircraft was unserviceable when it crashed or even when it took-off. Why? Because I don't know! Nowhere, bast0n, have I ever said that the aircraft was serviceable when it crashed, etc etc..Why? Because I don't know! If ever there were a case for RAF, and for that matter any UK Military, Aircraft Accidents being investigated only by professional accident investigators then it must be this one. Instead we have an investigation that turns its back on known airworthiness deficiencies, on crash evidence of control problems and instead puts its faith in the manufacturer to construct a model, based on incorrect data, that has the effect of pointing the finger away from their product and towards, well we know who don't we boys and girls? Remove UK Military Airworthiness from the MOD and remove Aircraft Accident Investigation from the Armed Forces ASAP, before more lives are wasted!
BTW I was asking why Olive Oil said:
when there is no such evidence. Olive?
Unairworthy maybe - but unserviceable? Where do you get that from?
BTW I was asking why Olive Oil said:
The overwhelming evidence is that two competent pilots flew a serviceable aircraft into the ground whilst IFR.
Blindingly obvious to you perhaps Olive , and no doubt to Messrs W&D as well, but I'm afraid that your construction does not amount to overwhelming evidence! The cavalier way in which evidence was selected, rejected, ignored and constructed by this Accident Investigation is nothing short of a scandal in itself, along with the unairworthiness that was probably the cause of the accident. The evidence of the dysfunctional way in which this investigation was conducted and in which its finding was arrived at is overwhelming I would suggest!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugaz
Gosh - where did that emerge from.................?
Olive Oil speaks for so many practical, experienced pilots in the art of low flying, in this forum. Perhaps more would like to speak up...........?
along with the unairworthiness that was probably the cause of the accident
Olive Oil speaks for so many practical, experienced pilots in the art of low flying, in this forum. Perhaps more would like to speak up...........?
It emerged from my opinion bast0n, you'll notice the word "probably" rather than "overwhelming evidence" to differentiate my opinions from those of Olive Oil. And what's all this malarkey about "practical, experienced pilots in the art of low flying"? Any serving or ex serving pilots surely qualify for that epitaph at some time or another, surely?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugaz dear boy!!
There are many around, then and now, with whom I would not be happy to sit in the back of their cabs as they flew me around at low level - and so I did not!
Just to tempt your curiosity - I hit something in a cloud whilst flying.........
And what's all this malarkey about "practical, experienced pilots in the art of low flying"? Any serving or ex serving pilots surely qualify for that epitaph at some time or another, surely?
Just to tempt your curiosity - I hit something in a cloud whilst flying.........
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sutton Surrey England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mull
"If it had developed an unserviceability, a competent and careful pilot, mindful of crew and passengers not to mention self, could have and should have remained VFR and returned to base."
About 600 parts have been recovered from the Airbus A330-200 which was lost off the coast of Brazil on 1 June. There is no evidence yet that the Airbus was unserviceable [though the ACARS comms system sent 24 error messages] in the 4 mins before loss of contact].
Should BEA, the French accident investigators investigators, conclude that the pilots of the Airbus were to blame on the basis that there's no evidence the aircraft was unserviceable?
In reality the BEA is not making any assumptions because they don't have the CVR and FDR. It is a pity the MoD and the RAF, when it comes to the crash of ZD576, have no such sensitivities.
When two 757s crashed in 1996 the investigators worked backwards from the black boxes and found that tiny problems had set off a chain of events which caused the loss of about 400 lives.
Without the black boxes it's unlikely they would found the probable causes.
Should the BEA, in the absence of black boxes, make assumptions that everything was working on the Airbus and that the pilots should have landed safely if they had "developed an unserviceability"?
About 600 parts have been recovered from the Airbus A330-200 which was lost off the coast of Brazil on 1 June. There is no evidence yet that the Airbus was unserviceable [though the ACARS comms system sent 24 error messages] in the 4 mins before loss of contact].
Should BEA, the French accident investigators investigators, conclude that the pilots of the Airbus were to blame on the basis that there's no evidence the aircraft was unserviceable?
In reality the BEA is not making any assumptions because they don't have the CVR and FDR. It is a pity the MoD and the RAF, when it comes to the crash of ZD576, have no such sensitivities.
When two 757s crashed in 1996 the investigators worked backwards from the black boxes and found that tiny problems had set off a chain of events which caused the loss of about 400 lives.
Without the black boxes it's unlikely they would found the probable causes.
Should the BEA, in the absence of black boxes, make assumptions that everything was working on the Airbus and that the pilots should have landed safely if they had "developed an unserviceability"?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Colins
As you well know there is a huge gulf between these two tradegedies. The AF jet just disappeared off the plot in very unknown circumstancies. The Chinook smacked into a hillside.
Your attempt to compare these events is incomprehensible. There are no black boxes to be found on the Mull - only wreckage. We know what happened - the Chinook flew into the ground in fog. We have not a clue what happened to the AF jet, and maybe never will.
Just try to stick with the facts as they are known, and try not to cloud the waters with irrelevant comparisons to other crashes. Stick with the known facts of this one and the answer is before your eyes.
As you well know there is a huge gulf between these two tradegedies. The AF jet just disappeared off the plot in very unknown circumstancies. The Chinook smacked into a hillside.
Your attempt to compare these events is incomprehensible. There are no black boxes to be found on the Mull - only wreckage. We know what happened - the Chinook flew into the ground in fog. We have not a clue what happened to the AF jet, and maybe never will.
Just try to stick with the facts as they are known, and try not to cloud the waters with irrelevant comparisons to other crashes. Stick with the known facts of this one and the answer is before your eyes.
Tony Collins, good post. I agree with you that there are some useful similarities between what appears to be two completely unrelated accidents. The first is that to date there is no CVR or ADR evidence. There never will be of course from the Mull, the Airworthiness authority was content that they need not be fitted! The Air France A330 was so equipped of course, but the chances of location and recovery recede with each passing day. Both aircraft had "previous" regarding suspected airworthiness problems, the Chinook Mk2 with flight and engine control shortcomings , the A330 with ice prone pitots. The difference is of course that only one Accident Investigation is under a separate and independent authority; the BEA. The parallel with Mull would be an investigation into the accident by Air France; their Mulhouse A320 pilot received much the same "finding" as Rick and Jon did from the RAF, in the days when Airbus and "la Gloire" were synonymous. They've moved on hopefully, time the RAF did so as well!
I agree with you that there are some useful similarities between what appears to be two completely unrelated accidents. The first is that to date there is no CVR or ADR evidence. There never will be of course from the Mull, the Airworthiness authority was content that they need not be fitted! The Air France A330 was so equipped of course, but the chances of location and recovery recede with each passing day. Both aircraft had "previous" regarding suspected airworthiness problems, the Chinook Mk2 with flight and engine control shortcomings , the A330 with ice prone pitots. The difference is of course that only one Accident Investigation is under a separate and independent authority; the BEA. The parallel with Mull would be an investigation into the accident by Air France; their Mulhouse A320 pilot received much the same "finding" as Rick and Jon did from the RAF, in the days when Airbus and "la Gloire" were synonymous. They've moved on hopefully, time the RAF did so as well!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 17th Jul 2009 at 21:57.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Colins
As you well know there is a huge gulf between these two tradegedies. The AF jet just disappeared off the plot in very unknown circumstances. The Chinook smacked into a hillside in very unknown circumstances.
Your attempt to compare these events is incomprehensible. There are no black boxes to be found on the Mull - only wreckage. We know what happened - the Chinook flew into the ground in fog but we don't know why. We have not a clue what happened to the AF jet and we don't know what ACTUALLY happened to ZD576, and maybe never will.
Just try to stick with the facts as some folk insist they are known, and try not to cloud the waters with irrelevant comparisons to other crashes. Stick with the small number of known facts of this one and the answer is before your eyes.
As you well know there is a huge gulf between these two tradegedies. The AF jet just disappeared off the plot in very unknown circumstances. The Chinook smacked into a hillside in very unknown circumstances.
Your attempt to compare these events is incomprehensible. There are no black boxes to be found on the Mull - only wreckage. We know what happened - the Chinook flew into the ground in fog but we don't know why. We have not a clue what happened to the AF jet and we don't know what ACTUALLY happened to ZD576, and maybe never will.
Just try to stick with the facts as some folk insist they are known, and try not to cloud the waters with irrelevant comparisons to other crashes. Stick with the small number of known facts of this one and the answer is before your eyes.
