Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Shy2Torque
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash, I can see no reason for this.
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash, I can see no reason for this.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Shy2Torque
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash if it had in fact been fitted to the aircraft but as so far the only person on the planet to suggest this is me and there is not a single shred of substantiated fact to back me up, but apart from that small fact , I can see no reason for this.
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash if it had in fact been fitted to the aircraft but as so far the only person on the planet to suggest this is me and there is not a single shred of substantiated fact to back me up, but apart from that small fact , I can see no reason for this.
Sorry to plagiarise but whilst not the best of english my addition to your post does make it slightly more accurate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter,
If you recall, this was posted in Jul 08; a few posts later, this 'respected' PPRuNer stated that he didn't want to step on anyone's toes, and that this information would be teased out, eventually.
Few seemed interested in his declaration at the time - I still think if there is any truth in his comments, then what else has the MOD supressed?
AA
If you recall, this was posted in Jul 08; a few posts later, this 'respected' PPRuNer stated that he didn't want to step on anyone's toes, and that this information would be teased out, eventually.
Few seemed interested in his declaration at the time - I still think if there is any truth in his comments, then what else has the MOD supressed?
AA
MoD has consistently stated that ARS-6 was not fitted. I believe this to be total deceit and I also believe this thread is an appropriate place to highlight that deceit. Also,
Quote:
I have also been shown evidence which indicates that ZD576 was carrying STF equipment on that fateful day and I think it important to establish that breaches of airworthiness regs continued from that day to this day specifically regarding Special Trials Fit procedures.
Quote:
I have also been shown evidence which indicates that ZD576 was carrying STF equipment on that fateful day and I think it important to establish that breaches of airworthiness regs continued from that day to this day specifically regarding Special Trials Fit procedures.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
2Shy2Torque
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash, I can see no reason for this.
I know it's hard to face up to the system to which you have dedicated your life but bigger than that system is the people of the UK who lost so much as a result of this crash - stonewalling such basic inquiry should not sit right in the minds of citizens of a free democracy, should it? The equipment and its use are well understood globally but seem taboo subjects to RAF personnel - apart from the intuitively obvious role it could have played in this crash, I can see no reason for this.
Since then I have spent the last fifteen years, fully and gainfully employed as a civilian pilot, in a variety of helicopter roles.
If you read and understood my posts here you will note that I have been highly critical the RAF's dealing with this issue. I am certainly not here protecting "the system".
You have falsely accused me of being part of some sort of "cover up" before, which I very strongly resent. I read the abridged version of the BOI report in 1995, after I had left the RAF, and immediately wrote to Flight International, accusing the RAF of a whitewash over this accident. That was well before this thread and Brian's campaign started.
So why the hell do you deduce that I am part of that same cover up, simply because I point out your errors in assumptions you have made, and continue to make? Believe me, if I thought you were correct with your theory, I would be right in there, backing you up. But I can't because you are WRONG! So wrong that you tend to divert away the campaign from its true path.
So, again, take note of these facts and think on before you write such ignorant and patronising twaddle about me. I helped train one of the two pilots involved in the Mull accident. RC was was one the most pleasant, polite and competent students I had flown with. I had met his father and his good lady and I am very well aware of the impact aircraft accidents have on those left behind; I lost enough friends and colleagues to very quickly learn all about it. I was an "A" category RAF support helicopter instructor. I was more experienced in SH than either of the two pilots involved. I served in the NI theatre not long before (I have the record of service and the medal to prove it). RAF SH crews were NOT, I repeat, NOT trained, nor expected, to use DME as a primary navigation aid. We used a combination of map to ground visual techniques and Decca TANS (Doppler and Decca based) and later, "SuperTANS" (GPS based). We did not have radar The last thing an RAF crew (or any other, be it RN or AAC) would do is rush towards high ground at high speed if they were intending to land.
If a trial of a new portable DME equipment was being run, (I'm certain it wasn't) it would not have been run in this way, in marginal weather, towards high terrain, with high value passengers, who could neither contribute to the trial, nor gain anything from it by being on board. I say this from my own personal experience of being involved in RAF trials of other new equipments during my time.
Again, I ask you (you totally ignored this question last time I asked you; I presume because you filed it in your "not compatible with the WK theory" bin) - WHY did JT ask for a completely different airframe for the flight, if only this Mk2 airframe had the DME equipment on board and this trial was the real reason for the flight?
Last edited by ShyTorque; 19th Nov 2009 at 17:19.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA, from an equally (more?) respected poster on this subject:
ShyTorque also makes an extremely valid point. There are those on this forum who knew the aircraft & operating environment, were very close friends with the crew and fervently believe justice was not done. What motivation would all these people have for covering up Walter's "secret trial"?
... there is no evidence I have seen that suggests that FTS equipment was on board ZD576, whether in an active, passive or redundant role. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, but I have read a substantial amount of paperwork and asked several direct questions on this subject and never had even a hint of any such equipment.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cgb,
As hitherto stated, I don't buy into Walter's theory, at all. But when nigegilb came onto this Thread and made the above statements, I think he should have the courage to follow through, or retract his comments. If proven, it could undermine the MOD's position, and open up a bank of questions.
AA
As hitherto stated, I don't buy into Walter's theory, at all. But when nigegilb came onto this Thread and made the above statements, I think he should have the courage to follow through, or retract his comments. If proven, it could undermine the MOD's position, and open up a bank of questions.
AA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Quite! Though I suspect that it would greatly help if anyone were able to confirm that CPLS (or whatever it was called in those days) was indeed fitted to ZD576 and in what form (by private PM or email if necc).
regs
F
Quite! Though I suspect that it would greatly help if anyone were able to confirm that CPLS (or whatever it was called in those days) was indeed fitted to ZD576 and in what form (by private PM or email if necc).
regs
F
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter has been asking this for quite a long time now, in fact without trying to be rude, quite a long time before you even entered the debate
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
I am well aware of WK's theory (with which I do not agree, as it happens - approach too fast for a landing). However, knowing about what electronic equipment was, or was not, fitted to the ac would help to dispell WK's theory of 'dark forces' up the Mull hillside, once and for all. Also, I am led to believe that the AAIB report may not cover everything fitted to the ac - as it was deemed irrelevant to the crash) but I was hoping that asking in a more polite way might generate a willingness to put the WK theory to bed, so that we may concentrate of other matters. Sorry, Walt, I feel it is but a side-show, no offence, old bean. However, I am sure you will not agree so will just have to agree to differ!
Now back to the main question; I doubt CPLS was fitted but if it was, where?
flipster
ps Was there an 'avionics crate' on board ZD576 and what was in it?
I am well aware of WK's theory (with which I do not agree, as it happens - approach too fast for a landing). However, knowing about what electronic equipment was, or was not, fitted to the ac would help to dispell WK's theory of 'dark forces' up the Mull hillside, once and for all. Also, I am led to believe that the AAIB report may not cover everything fitted to the ac - as it was deemed irrelevant to the crash) but I was hoping that asking in a more polite way might generate a willingness to put the WK theory to bed, so that we may concentrate of other matters. Sorry, Walt, I feel it is but a side-show, no offence, old bean. However, I am sure you will not agree so will just have to agree to differ!
Now back to the main question; I doubt CPLS was fitted but if it was, where?
flipster
ps Was there an 'avionics crate' on board ZD576 and what was in it?
I was hoping that asking in a more polite way might generate a willingness to put the WK theory to bed
Even if the MoD issued an official report denying it's existence on that aircraft, their credibility is now so low how many of us would accept it? Walter certainly wouldn't.
It appears that the only answer he will listen to is one that supports his theory.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if you described the use of this kit as when it was fitted to HC2 Chinooks others with an aviation background could judge for themselves whether it plausibly explained their actions - perhaps the penny would drop for you yourselves.
As I have said often before, you don't have to get hung up on the issue of this particular equipment - it is just my suggestion as a candidate for what could have had them approach the area confidently, and which could have misled them if misused.
What the evidence strongly suggests is that the approach to the Mull was an excursion with the intent to return to the clear run up the straight coast of Islay/Jura - specifically, approaching a known LZ.
As I have said often before, you don't have to get hung up on the issue of this particular equipment - it is just my suggestion as a candidate for what could have had them approach the area confidently, and which could have misled them if misused.
What the evidence strongly suggests is that the approach to the Mull was an excursion with the intent to return to the clear run up the straight coast of Islay/Jura - specifically, approaching a known LZ.
So, UK Military Aviation is to have an "Independent" Military Aviation Authority, commencing operations April 2010. One of the early indicators of the extent of its "Independence" will be the necessary and urgent audit of the airworthiness of the military airfleets, including of course the Chinook Mk2. If that is done thoroughly it cannot fail but confirm what has emerged on this thread, that the Chinook Mk2 was grossly lacking in airworthiness when released into Royal Air Force service and retained that deficiency at the time of the tragedy that is the subject of this and preceding threads. Thus the MOD will have produced for itself the "new" evidence without which it has refused to budge from its obdurate position that the Finding of Messrs. Wratten and Day must stand. If it does indeed accept that ZD576 was grossly unairworthy when it crashed into the Mull then the gross injustice perpetrated by the RAF upon the memory and reputations of its pilots must surely be righted. If it is not, because there is still "no new evidence", then I contend that the MAA will have shown itself to be the SoS's Poodle and totally "Dependent".
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wales/now Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where has everyone been ?
Am I the only one to have noticed the four week interlude since 20 November.?
I even e-mailed Pprune and got a rude reply.
Even us readers need our daily dose of informed discussion on this topic.
I even e-mailed Pprune and got a rude reply.
Even us readers need our daily dose of informed discussion on this topic.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2:
I disagree. An "audit of the airworthiness" of the current Chinook fleet will not necessarily tell us anything about that aircraft's airworthiness 15 years ago. Of course, the MAA could investigate that specific issue but I'm not sure that would be an appropriate activity for an organisation whose priority should be ensuring that MoD aircraft are currently airworthy.
So, UK Military Aviation is to have an "Independent" Military Aviation Authority [...]. One of the early indicators of the extent of its "Independence" will be the necessary and urgent audit of the airworthiness of the military airfleets, including of course the Chinook Mk2. If that is done thoroughly it cannot fail but confirm what has emerged on this thread, that the Chinook Mk2 was grossly lacking in airworthiness when released into Royal Air Force service and retained that deficiency at the time of the tragedy that is the subject of this and preceding threads.
Squidlord:
Given that all this is unchartered territory I would suggest that the MAA will have to assume that the airworthiness of every fleet is compromised unless proved otherwise. Thus a full audit from cradle to grave (which it seems the Nimrod is already going to) is called for. You cannot "audit the airworthiness" of the current Chinook fleet without conducting a full historic audit, otherwise such an audit will be built on sand and be worthless. The whole point about what has emerged in these pages, in the Nimrod Report, and elsewhere is that documentary falsification of the airworthiness of entire fleets has been endemic. That is why there is to be an SIB investigation. If this process is fudged then the UK Military Airfleet can never be called airworthy.
An "audit of the airworthiness" of the current Chinook fleet will not necessarily tell us anything about that aircraft's airworthiness 15 years ago
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chug
That is why there is to be an SIB investigation.
BOAC:
Given that we are talking of 53 deaths in the Hercules, Nimrod and Chinook tragedies alone, without including other airworthiness related accidents, "heavy" hardly gets close to describing this scandal, BOAC. The start of an investigation by "Military Police" was announced here by this man:
BBC News - Military aviation body set up after fatal Nimrod crash
It will be interesting to see where their enquiries lead to.
That could get heavy.
BBC News - Military aviation body set up after fatal Nimrod crash
It will be interesting to see where their enquiries lead to.
BBC tomorrow 4 Jan 2010
The redoubtable Angus Stickler is about to broadcast some more hard-hitting Chinook stuff tomorrow Monday. As he’s a reporter for ‘Today’ on Radio 4, the main thrust will be on that programme, but he has also done a telly package for ‘Breakfast’ on BBC1. That will probably get more coverage on the News Channel during the day.
The plan so far for ‘Today’ is a live interview of Angus with one of the presenters at 0630-ish, then his main package at 0730-ish, with a response from a senior politician sometime in the last hour (0800 till 0900).
All this is subject to the usual provisos - i e it might happen quite differently, or even not at all.
I’ll post if I get any firmer info.
airsound
As of 2150, it looks like the schedule above remains about right - with the politician response coming at 0810. That means they're treating it as their top story. Unless something else comes along.
And Breakfast telly plans to run Angus' package at the top of each hour, 0600, 0700, 0800
The plan so far for ‘Today’ is a live interview of Angus with one of the presenters at 0630-ish, then his main package at 0730-ish, with a response from a senior politician sometime in the last hour (0800 till 0900).
All this is subject to the usual provisos - i e it might happen quite differently, or even not at all.
I’ll post if I get any firmer info.
airsound
As of 2150, it looks like the schedule above remains about right - with the politician response coming at 0810. That means they're treating it as their top story. Unless something else comes along.
And Breakfast telly plans to run Angus' package at the top of each hour, 0600, 0700, 0800
Last edited by airsound; 3rd Jan 2010 at 20:54. Reason: update
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a good piece, IMHO, at 6am - and the fact that BBC News headlined with it.
BBC News - Chinook crash 'may have been caused by software faults'
How the RAF and MoD continue to stand by the original verdict is beyond me.
BBC News - Chinook crash 'may have been caused by software faults'
How the RAF and MoD continue to stand by the original verdict is beyond me.
Last edited by Cyberhacker; 4th Jan 2010 at 05:20. Reason: Add link to BCC website