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 7th Aug 2009, 01:46
  #5541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend
Campers!

For goodness sakes!

Pilots mess up from time to time! (even me).

Be they PPL, ATPL, Military Special Forces or some other type.

All are trained to do what they do. ALL have demonstrated that they can do what they were trained to do. And yet accidents happen, both to the PPL the ATPL and the military, even military SF pilot.

Now, I'll agree that these guys "guilt" can not be proved. At least in a court of law.

In the eyes of a fellow pilot, however, they surely cocked it up big time- as I may do someday myself- God forbid!

If I ever do, somehow I doubt that, even if the circumstances are similar to the Chinook crash, anyone will give a flying F&ck!

And why should they?

They'd say I was a c*nt for pressing on and having the classic VMC into IMC followed by cumulo-granitas accident

Personally, IF I'd been flying that Chinook, I'd have pulled up hard as I went IMC (esp as MAC has no DME) and f&ck the icing. And I think these guys did exactly that.

Are SF pilots different to the rest of us 'mere' pilots?

Can they never f*uck up?


I'll bet, if these guys could speak, they'd have a lot to say.

And they probably would not choose to slag off their own aircraft. (as a lot of folk have done here)

To complain about the indictment of gross incompetance is silly. The fine is already paid.
I have high lighted one word and one word only as it sort of sums up yours and the MOD's stance.

It quite succinctly proves that neither you nor they actually know what happened so thanks for that
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 02:27
  #5542 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
cc.

That said, I've been in there much times. Cloudy, it often is.

Our MDA was, from memory, 1800'. Most times , coming in from Islay, easier to do it under the wx, 500' or less (with pax). You'd never get down otherwise. Cancelling IFR was a 'command decision', made routinely but never without careful consideration of the wx.

Often, even though VMC prevailed, the Mull was cloudy. There is often orographic uplift and a cap on top. Even Paul McCartney refered to 'clouds rolling in from the sea' in his famous song about the 'Mull of Kintyre'.

The clouds tended to form on the upwind side of the Mull.

We lost an Islander there during the proc turn in good (night) VMC a few years ago.

Why would a SF RAF guy, stag in below MDA when not visual?

We had a discreet let down proc.

Was like spaghetti, based on the MAC, timing for the descent.

I've spent a lot of time flying in the western islands, during which time the company lost two aircraft.

The loss of this aircraft is a sad thing. And no doubt about it.

I was in a fixed wing type unlike the accident pilots

They had the benefit (if you like such things) of flying a Helo!

Not sure?

reduce speed to 10 Kt. (not available to us) Hover! Wait! Think! Navigate! (luxury).

Not these guys. They were doing a good speed when they hit (and finally pulling up!)

The 'gross negligance' charge is, in my own mind, justified.

If I ever do something as stupid myself, you have my permission to do me down on here.

They did the crime and they paid the time.

Sad, but true. Everyone else (including me) is just an uninterested bystander.

Stand UP the man who says he can't cock it up.

Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 7th Aug 2009 at 03:42.
 
Old 7th Aug 2009, 07:09
  #5543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Barbiesfriend,

Every sortie was planned VMC. But every sortie had a "bad weather" plan.
Most involved a penetration climb.
Most of the aircraft I flew on relied on anti or de-icing to carry out this plan.
The one exception was the Canberra which from 300kts low level could normally zoom through the icing layer before it could affect.
This luxury was not available to the Chinook.

So could the Chinook have safely climbed to SALT?

Read back through the thread. It has been discussed hundreds of times before.
dalek is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 07:19
  #5544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dalek

The Investigating Board, which consisted of 2 experienced Chinook Pilots and an Engineer experienced on the Chinook, were quite specific that a climb to Safety Altitude in the vicinity of the Mull was practicable within icing limitations in the forecast weather conditions.
cazatou is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 08:58
  #5545 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,561
Received 402 Likes on 210 Posts
They had the benefit (if you like such things) of flying a Helo!

Not sure?

reduce speed to 10 Kt. (not available to us) Hover! Wait! Think! Navigate! (luxury).
I see, so is a speed reduction to 10 kts and a hover an option for a helicopter pilot if "not visual"?
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 09:24
  #5546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
BBF:
And they probably would not choose to slag off their own aircraft. (as a lot of folk have done here)
To complain about the indictment of gross incompetance is silly. The fine is already paid.
It's not so much the aircraft I choose to "slag off" as those involved in rushing it into RAF service when it was not fit to fly, with very serious flight and engine control problems. I therefore cannot agree with your punch line (which I trust refers to the "finding" and not their deaths). In that respect "the fine" has been paid but by the wrong people. A double injustice!
PS The "indictment" was not of "gross incompetence", the Finding was of "Gross Negligence". Right finding but, as I say, laid on the wrong people!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 12:34
  #5547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caz,

We have been here several times before. The Board were using a forecast made several months before and about eight hours old when the crew arrived off the Mull.
Experienced or not the BOI were making an "educated guess".
Icing never occurs where it is expected. Always somewhere else.
How do I know? I spent five years with Met Research Flight flying in and out of cloud. They were always predicting cloud composition and they were often wrong. Even with almost real time information.
Even flying Snoopy through the cloud five minutes in front of them would not guarantee them safety from heavy icing.
No one knows the "actual" conditions at the time.
Can we move on please.
dalek is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 13:05
  #5548 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
OK, Dalek.

So they were pressing on in marginal VFR conditions. Who'se not done that?

Then they inadvertantly went IMC.
Even a PPL knows the drill: Get on instruments and do a 180.

I agree that these guys would likely not consider that option, so their choice was either to plug on or climb.

Looks like they did both. Stuck at it for a bit, then when it didn't brighten up, started a climb. Unluckily for them a bit too late.

Pressing on at low level, in IMC with known high ground nearby, even for a second or two is utterly foolish. They should have slowed down and climbed, or turned away, as soon as it even looked like they were going to lose VMC, and as for icing, F*ck the icing. Deal with that later- IF it happens.

Now, just to be utterly clear. I don't know and I'm not pretending to know the exact circumstances of this accident.

The legalities of the accusation against the flight crew are of zero interest to me or to them.

If ANY OTHER PILOT had done what they did, it would be an open and shut case.

Not here though!
 
Old 7th Aug 2009, 13:34
  #5549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend
OK, Dalek.

So they were pressing on in marginal VFR conditions. Who'se not done that?

Then they inadvertantly went IMC.
Even a PPL knows the drill: Get on instruments and do a 180.

I agree that these guys would likely not consider that option, so their choice was either to plug on or climb.

Looks like they did both. Stuck at it for a bit, then when it didn't brighten up, started a climb. Unluckily for them a bit too late.

Pressing on at low level, in IMC with known high ground nearby, even for a second or two is utterly foolish. They should have slowed down and climbed, or turned away, as soon as it even looked like they were going to lose VMC, and as for icing, F*ck the icing. Deal with that later- IF it happens.

Now, just to be utterly clear. I don't know and I'm not pretending to know the exact circumstances of this accident.

The legalities of the accusation against the flight crew are of zero interest to me or to them.

If ANY OTHER PILOT had done what they did, it would be an open and shut case.

Not here though!
So actually, just like the rest of us on here you can only guess as to what might have occured
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 15:05
  #5550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Barbiesfriend,

I agree with you entirely. If the only two options were knowingly flying into high ground or climbing into icing, there is no contest you climb.

What I am pointing out is the statement that a climb to SALT would have been entirely safe , is not entirely accurate.

The BOI by their statement are suggesting that there would be no safety consequences of a climb to SALT. I am simply saying this is an opinion not a fact

Last edited by dalek; 7th Aug 2009 at 15:18.
dalek is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 16:53
  #5551 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Seldom fitforpurpose. Could I have made that clearer?

Dalek. What was wrong with turning away?

If they decided to continue on course they should have climbed immediately. They were very low level, fast, pointing at the Mull and IMC.

Only a twit would continue under these circumstances just because of the POSSIBILITY of an ice encounter if he climbed.

And of course, they did climb as the accident site verifies. Just a bit too late. As the machine was plainly under the control of the pilots and climbing, it can't have been in such bad shape. Hey, they almost made it.

Basic Airmanship!

Smell the coffee.
 
Old 7th Aug 2009, 17:14
  #5552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
BBF:
Now, just to be utterly clear. I don't know and I'm not pretending to know the exact circumstances of this accident.
They were very low level, fast, pointing at the Mull and IMC.
As the machine was plainly under the control of the pilots and climbing, it can't have been in such bad shape.
For someone who doesn't know the exact circumstances, you seem to "know" more than anyone else (with the usual exception of Messrs W&D, of course).
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 17:54
  #5553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cows getting bigger
<<OK, let's put this "business at the Mull" argument to bed shall we? I will agree that maybe the crew wanted to make an unplanned landing at your uber-secret LZ; like many other things, impossible to prove.>>
In reverse order:
“impossible to prove”: the RADALT warning and HP's baro altimeter settings were appropriate for an imminent landing at the elevation of that LZ;
they were lined up for it – 035 mag was the best line for it (you have to have been there!); the steer calculation data showed a track of 028 T, which was equivalent to 035 mag; and the HP's HoSI course setting was found on 035;
the power levels were matched and at a level which had resulted in a calculated reduction in air speed which suggests a stable situation for coasting in to something.
“ uber-secret LZ”: it was no secret to locals and squaddies that it had been well used up until this crash – by Chinooks, too – Flt Lt Tapper had landed there himself on a previous occasion – if this was the old Soviet Union, I could expect such denial, why so here?


<<Why on earth would the passengers have had any interest in a demonstration of such a capability? ... a demonstration of an allegedly secret SH capability that those particular people would have had absolutely no interest in is nonsense.>> I have given my thoughts on this before – briefly now, I would have thought that such a system would have been of great interest to certain of those officers on board (think of extracting their men in a hurry from an OP, just for one example) – the inclusion of such a minor diversion into the flight for such a demo would have been an easy sell to them


<<Secondly, why would the det unilaterally add such a landing to the task? All they would have wanted to do was get their passengers to destination and then go home (or stay over).>> This was described as a training flight by an RAF officer at one of the inquiries – after he realised his gaff, he back pedalled with a truism – he explained that there was a shortage of hours available for training and so wherever and whenever possible training could have been inserted into an otherwise routine flight. Anyone here want to dispute this?
<<The very thought of that simple bus run task encompassing another, 'black' procedure is just too off the wall.>> Putting your all into this piece of spin, were you?


<<PS. I genuinely don't have any knowledge of any FPL left behind. If I had filed one the route would have read DCT, nothing more.>> I ask again for someone who saw what was passed as a photocopy of the flight plan to come forward – surely someone in the Mull group could at least get access to it and comment as to its relevence if there is anything on it that prevents its complete disclosure?


Barbies Boy Friend
You raise some interesting points.
<<We lost an Islander there during the proc turn in good (night) VMC a few years ago>> If this was the air ambulance, it was well out to sea and not running into rock but spatial disorientation did the trick (from memory)? Descending through broken cloud (down to 400ft?) at night over the sea - it was not really “good VMC”, was it? And the (sole) pilot was doing an instrument approach, was he not? But I'm glad you mentioned this one as it was covered by Lowther Hill primary and secondary radar – as this Chinook should have been during the bulk of the sea crossing (SSR code! ).


<<Often, even though VMC prevailed, the Mull was cloudy. There is often orographic uplift and a cap on top. …. The clouds tended to form on the upwind side of the Mull.>>
Good stuff – I have tried to explain these weather conditions on this thread previously – especially in the case of a strong on-shore wind in the late afternoon when you can get a thin layer of mist riunning up the slope right on the ground blurring surface detail. Now please, as a pilot, explain to us all on this thread what it is like to approach such a headland in those conditions – can you not “see” the ground from a good way off? If you were attempting to land on the lower slopes of such a headland, such that you were indeed heading straight for it, just how hard would it be to judge your closing range visually? It would be hard to argue with an instrument that was telling you that you had further to go than you did if the thing was wrong, wouldn't it? Get the point?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 21:15
  #5554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
BBF

As the machine was plainly under the control of the pilots
While this was the original opinion of MoD, the Directorate of Air Staffs belatedly admitted in 2005, in writing, that the aircraft may not have been under control, and that the lack of control may only have become evident as they tried to execute the post-waypoint turn (i.e. at the end of a straight leg).

In the same letter they confirmed there was no obligation to be IFR if the pilots intended making that turn.

The above belatedly acknowledged the truth of the evidence Sqn Ldr Burke was prevented from giving to give to the BoI, but later gave to the HoL. In doing so, D/Air Staffs clearly contradicted the many anti-Burke briefings MoD had so vindictively conducted; which is to their credit. (I'm trying to be fair, but it's not actually clear from the letter if they KNEW they were contradicting the party line!).

Perhaps further posts should use this admission as the baseline for discussion, instead of the previous, discredited one.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 21:22
  #5555 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Walter

Firstly, yes I was referring to that islander ambulance. You're correct in your comments. Probably he overbanked it in the proc turn while looking 'up' for some sort of reference on the ground.

I'm not as well equipped to answer your second query. I suspect that the Chinook crew would have been visual with the surface more or less throughout. With the Mull shrouded in cloud, and it's often really just the actual high ground that's covered, their forward (and downward) vis might only have reduced when they were very near. Plainly they realised they were in danger and started a pull up. Maybe they could see from looking down at the sea state, that they were very near to coasting in?

You mention some sort of let down to land. I have no idea how that could be done except perhaps with the weather radar (does a Chinook even have wx radar?). One thing is for sure. Any approach to land here, in this wx, would be fraught. There is only the MAC to give you a PL but no DME.

I would be going really slowly, but these guys were seen by a yachtsman and going at a fair clip.

I'll bet they could see nothing of the high ground at all. It's not a question of 'blurring' surface features. You would see sweet FA forward but if low enough maybe you'd see the beach or waves and realise where you were- then time for full power and a big pull up

It's just a shame that the MAC had no DME.

Tucumseh.

I didn't know that. I based my comment on the fact that they were plainly climbing hard. Surely if it could climb, it could also have turned. Most FMS will start a turn before the turning point. How much before naturally depends on how big the change of track is.
 
Old 7th Aug 2009, 22:05
  #5556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
BBF

Thanks. I don't comment on airmanship issues as there are better qualified than I (not difficult!). I was merely quoting MoD and pointing out what few seem to realise. Their story has changed significantly as factual evidence they desparately tried to withhold has gradually emerged.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 22:14
  #5557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
tucumseh:
While this was the original opinion of MoD, the Directorate of Air Staffs belatedly admitted in 2005, in writing, that the aircraft may not have been under control, and that the lack of control may only have become evident as they tried to execute the post-waypoint turn (i.e. at the end of a straight leg).
BBF:
Surely if it could climb, it could also have turned.
While it is true that the Chinook Mk2 at that time was cursed with both Engine Control problems (DECU connectors that intermittently didn't and FADEC code riddled with errors) and Flight Control problems (control pallet detachment and loose articles (control springs) causing control jams in one or more axis), I doubt that even the most zealous "airworthiness cause" posters postulate that all of these effects coincided to cause the accident. As you say, Barbie, the aircraft could climb, but apparently it did not/could not turn.
As tucumseh reminds us, the man who could and wanted to give evidence of having experienced these various "surprises" of the Mk2, Sqn Ldr Burke, was not called upon to do so by the BoI. Fortunately for us the FAI and the HoL were more receptive, and his evidence is available there for all to see.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2009, 23:39
  #5558 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Chugalug. Agree.

I really understand that the gross negligence charge is causing a lot of pain. Also that, as the thing had no FDR or CVR the facts of the accident will likely never be known. The comments re Lowther Hills' radar coverage are very interesting tho.

I've only respect for the RAF.

Last time I checked, they employ humans to fly. Like where I work.

We f*ck up and so does the RAF.

There is 280 pages of hand wringing here.

I think it's about time that the pilots' advocates on here faced up to the facts.

VFR into IMC at low level with high ground. Only luck can save you.
 
Old 8th Aug 2009, 07:25
  #5559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 74
Posts: 789
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
BBF you really are an utter twonk. In the same post you state that the facts will likely never be known and then you go on to urge pilots to face up to the facts, Er, yes............!

I would happily face up to the facts if they were established. They are not, so the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" criterion is patently wrong.
1.3VStall is online now  
Old 8th Aug 2009, 09:30
  #5560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
BBF:
Chugalug. Agree.
Um, I don't think so, Barbie. Do you ever read your posts from end to end before you hit submit? As 1.3 obligingly points out they are peppered with contradictions. From your posts I take it that you are a current civilian pilot. In that you are indeed most fortunate whether you realise it or no. You have a Regulatory Authority that single mindedly and objectively enforces its Regulations including particularly, for the purposes of this thread, those relating to Airworthiness. You also have a Professional Accident Investigating body to discover the cause of each and every accident in an endeavour to prevent a recurrence. To all intents and purposes it is my contention, shared with others, that UK Military Aviators have neither. Now you may accept or deny that proposition, you may even use it as a basis of expressing your superior knowledge and experience on this forum. Personally if I were you I'd give thanks for my good fortune and move heaven and earth to share it with my military brothers and sisters. Your call.
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.