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 Jan 2010, 15:35
  #5981 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
OK - I'll bite
Originally Posted by baston
a few KNOWN facts
- apart from the fact that they were IMC when they crashed which no-one denies, can you, for the benefit of all, list those?
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 15:38
  #5982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,266
I understand well the point that you are making, AA, and for all I know you may well be right, but what you appear to admire I'm afraid I must condemn. The Royal Air Force is not a local authority or a Quango, it is a Fighting Service. Its Leaders (and the CAS, whatever might be his day to day duties, is the senior serving officer in that Fighting Service) are responsible for a duty of care to their subordinates that they may well send to War (as now). There has been much derision in this forum of the concept of "falling on one's sword", in fact as much derision as the more inept act of "shooting oneself in one's foot". As might be seen by my stated age, I come from a far off time when the former was seen as the act of someone who couldn't in all honour remain in post. The last person so to do, that I recall, was Lord Carrington, Thatcher's Foreign Secretary, following the invasion of the Falkland Islands. No doubt he too is damned with the rhetorical "What Good does it do?". The answer IMHO is that it is less about Good and Bad but rather about Right and Wrong. There has been great wrong done by the RAF CoC, not only to these two JO's but to the Service as a whole. It is time that the RAF 'fessed up to that and set about righting that wrong. Amongst other things I consider that a great deal of falling on swords will be called for!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 15:45
  #5983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: cranfield
Posts: 3
Chinook Human factors not pilot error

this is merely my observation on the whole issue as I mailed to the Daily Telegraph today - more in hope than expectaion -

Within most of the aviation industry the term 'human factors' has been recognised for some years as a vastly more fruitful psychological safety perspective than 'pilot error'. Unfortunately this recognition is less than universal as the comments by the CAS, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton (6 Jan) perhaps show: if you were buying a new car and the salesperson informed you its 'operating instructions had 'factored into' them such 'software issues' as unreliable speed indications, intermittant ABS braking control, random electronic fuel flow and 'smart' systems that could not tell the difference between hot and cold, day and night, rain or dry, the caveat that you are now aware of the inherent systemic design faults would hardly excuse the seller of his obligations, nor be likely to persuade you to buy - or any insurer to insure you! But if you were obliged, by the very nature of your job and duty to drive the car, would anyone in their right mind be surprised if you crashed? Yet a similar scenario might have been presented to the crew of the Chinook which crashed off the Mull of Kintyre. Until the totality of the 'human element' rather than just the 'pilot element' is fully considered in this investigation it appears that justice may never be done.
juggling pete is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 16:26
  #5984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Chug:

I'm in agreement with everything you say and feel. I agree that this is a right versus wrong issue but, unfortunately, times change. There was, for example, a time when our country's leaders had a modicum of honour themselves. That has clearly changed - look at the thieves whining about having to pay back expenses they embezzled..

Trying to be honourable with politicians and civil serpents has proven to be a waste of time since those who have the rank to stand up to them have retirement and other benefits held to ransom unless they toe the line. Thus, as in warfare, they need to "learn, adapt and overcome". The means by which the duty of care is fulfilled is, frankly, subordinate to the fact that it actually is fulfilled. If the CAS has to slink around the corridors of power thrusting metaphorical knives into the backs of the incumbent thieves and traitors then so be it, (I'd be happy with real knives too). If Dalton has cottoned onto this then, while I don't like the fact he has to stoop to those tactics, I applaud his attempt to beat the scum at their own game.

Then again, he may just be an idiot that gave away the farm inadvertently. Either way, in this case - with luck - the outcome will be positive and we can go back to trying to find the leader you wish at a later date...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 16:42
  #5985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,897
Interesting postscript on Icing Clearance

The Master Airworthiness Reference (the Release to Service) was at Amendment 1 at time of accident.

A properly amended RTS (i.e. in accordance with accompanying embodiment instructions) does NOT mention icing clearance; superceding the clearance commonly mentioned here.

Not only does this cause confusion to those who would rely on the RTS at the time, it creates a conflict between the Master and subsidiary documents (FRCs etc) and is indicative of just how sloppy some parts of MoD were.

This error was rectified post-crash. Better late than never I suppose.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 17:13
  #5986 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Have the media been 'stirred into action' yet? Anyone know? Methinks a little 'help from our friends' would not go amiss right now. What is Paxman's phone number?
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 17:46
  #5987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
walter k - the company I worked for at the time no longer exists, so sadly even if I were still in touch with colleagues I don't think I could get an answer. However from memory, I recall that I was told that although the demand for full power had been given by the pilots, the FADEC control had failed to respond... it wasn't that the engines had not yet spooled up to max speed, it was a matter that the FADEC had not responded to the pilot's request
HamishMcBush is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 17:48
  #5988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
"drew his revolver and pointed it directly at his foot". On can reasonably assume that, in order to reach his current position, the man is not a fool. Has anyone considered that the apparently errant shot from the revolver was, in fact, quite deliberately aimed?
Hi AA

I did consider it and certainly hope you are right. However, when it comes to the MoD, I'm afraid my cynical gland goes into overdrive.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 18:30
  #5989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,897
although the demand for full power had been given by the pilots, the FADEC control had failed to respond.
If this were so, could it be caused by the infamous DECU connector coming loose or an intermittent fault due to contaminated or eroded contacts?


Hamish - If you are unaware, there was an instruction to carry out in-flight servicing every 15 mins to check a known problem, but no instructions as to what to do if it detached between servicing intervals (although MoD's position is the aircraft would "glide" to the ground).
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 19:43
  #5990 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
No surprise then, but in response to my #6054 Baston has declined to tell us his findings of 'known facts', instead inviting me to 'read the thread'.

QED - waste of time.
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 20:05
  #5991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,266
AA
since those who have the rank to stand up to them have retirement and other benefits held to ransom unless they toe the line.:
and there's the rub! Most of the subverting of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations over the last three decades would appear to have been organised and assured not by "politicians and civil serpents" but by senior Royal Air Force Officers. If the CAS is set on ensuring that such men are brought to book then he will have my best wishes, but I'll believe it when I see it, I'm afraid. If you or I had set about subverting the operational effectiveness of the Squadrons on which we served we would rightly have expected to face Courts Martial. What is different here?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 20:20
  #5992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Hamish <<...it wasn't that the engines had not yet spooled up to max speed, it was a matter that the FADEC had not responded to the pilot's request...>>
What was this based on? Was this formally put to the AAIB?
Given that helicopters are inherently unstable and that such control systems would be working all the time, it seems highly improbable that the FADEC either didn't respond just at that moment before impact or that the crew did not notice such a problem earlier and avoid approaching difficult ground they had flown quite a distance that day with it apparently working!.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 20:35
  #5993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
BOAC
(Dare I suggest?) If you read the thread regarding the wx, I think you will find that I don't believe that they were in IMC until the very last seconds, as they entered the ground mist, which hardly counts. I have repeatedly suggested that anyone interested in this case should actully go up there at the right time of year and see such weather for themselves it is quite consistent. At low level on that day (from what was expected and eyewitnesses I have spoken to) they would have been able to see the Mull from quite a way off (including the shoreline) but it would have been bereft of familiar objects or ground texture that could have helped their visual judgement of closing range while they were approaching at speed.
In those conditions, my view is that at the position of waypoint change they had already come in too close to have relied safely on SuperTANS or visual judgement and so, if you argue that they were not negligent, you need to dig deeper to explore the possibilities for equipment or procedures that they may have been reliant upon to excuse them.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 20:45
  #5994 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Hello again, Walter - which post was that in reply to?
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2010, 20:47
  #5995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
BOAC

No surprise then, but in response to my #6054 Baston has declined to tell us his findings of 'known facts', instead inviting me to 'read the thread'.
If by now Boac you have not managed to garner all the known facts of this accident you really do not have the authority to comment. I do not intend to repeat all the posts for those who will not/cannot see. Do try to keep up and do your own research. QED!

Good night.

PS This was my pm to Boac


Hullo Boac


Quote:
- apart from the fact that they were IMC when they crashed which no-one denies, can you, for the benefit of all, list those?

I think it may be efficacious(!) if you reread the relevant parts of the thread!

All the best and lets keep our differing views polite and cheerful.

I think it was pilot error and I also think that their RAF Lordships have behaved abominably, so we have a little common ground.
David

Last edited by bast0n; 12th Jan 2010 at 08:16.
bast0n is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2010, 09:21
  #5996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
I think it was pilot error and I also think that their RAF Lordships have behaved abominably, so we have a little common ground.
David
Bast0n,

Hello again. I was taken aback by your comment that you've always been against the verdict of Gross Negligence - that's not how I remembered your posts at all.

I just had a look back at pages 269/270/271, and you seem more than satisfied with the original verdict.

However, when I come to reply to your post, your suggestion that the verdict was unfair/disgraceful - can't remember the exact words you used - has gone.

Have you been reminded/remembered how you entered the thread?

In answer to BOAC's question - From your #5413:
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Exactly - you have it in one! Cut out all the conjecture from the "what if" brigade - stick to what is known and there you have it. An aircraft flown into the ground in bad weather that they should have avoided.............
These are the "known facts" he was asking you to confirm, I believe.
You also stated the Airworthiness of the aircraft was irrelevant in your #5390

Has your position on any of this changed?

Kind regards,

TN

Last edited by Thor Nogson; 12th Jan 2010 at 09:27. Reason: Change to Bast0n's post etc
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2010, 10:15
  #5997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thor

Thanks for commenting on my posts.

I have always been against the "gross" negligence, criminal culpability, and all the other statements that have been thrown at this unfortunate crew. I have also tried to dig a little at those who I believe have tried to obfuscate the argument with breakfast menus, airworthiness issues that seem to have little bearing on this actual flight and the machinations of Whitehall and the dreaded Boscombe Down clique who from practical experience of my own seem often to be a. hidebound and b. not in the real world of those out on the ground. (Ducking as appropriate.)

My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?

I have in the past mentioned DR and use of a stopwatch as a fallback when approaching from the sea high ground in bad weather and many other basic airmanship points especially the bit about that whatever is going on in the cockpit,(bitten by wasps etc), someone MUST keep flying the aircraft. Two lots of heads downs to deal with emergencies is not a good idea especially when the crew knew that they were very close to high ground covered in cloud.

The premise that this aircraft from the last waypoint suddenly took complete control of its own destiny and hurled itself for probably over a couple of minutes straight into the Mull with no distress call and so on seems to me to be a bit far fetched.

Actually my views on this saga are pretty unimportant but if if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc etc.............

Pursuing the heirarchy is not of interest to me, though obviously very important to some - but the actual mechanics of this flight is fascinating to those of us who have been there, seen it, done it.


Best wishes and good luck in proving whatever points you are persuing.

David
bast0n is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2010, 10:37
  #5998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
I have always been against the "gross" negligence, criminal culpability, and all the other statements that have been thrown at this unfortunate crew.
That doesn't sit well with your
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
stick to what is known and there you have it. An aircraft flown into the ground in bad weather that they should have avoided.............
That sounds like you were suggesting gross negligence to me...

If you don't mind me asking, why did you edit out the "I have always been against the "gross" negligence" part of your previous post?

Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
I have also tried to dig a little at those who I believe have tried to obfuscate the argument with breakfast menus, airworthiness issues that seem to have little bearing on this actual flight
My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?
Bearing in mind this aircraft had no data recording equipment, we don't know if any of the airworthiness issues had any impact on the flight, do we?

Likewise, since we do not know what the pilots did or did not do, how can you suggest a verdict of pilot error. What was their error?!?

I'm not saying that it was not pilot error, far from it, but it cannot be proven.

Take a look at it from the other side. Two very competent pilots flew straight into a cloud cover and then a hill they knew was obscured by it when they had other clear and obvious options available. It as unlikely as any other scenario.

Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Two lots of heads downs to deal with emergencies is not a good idea especially when the crew knew that they were very close to high ground covered in cloud.
You're correct, of course. But if there was an emergency that needed their attention, it would probably have been relevant...

Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Best wishes and good luck in proving whatever points you are persuing.
I, like many others, don't feel the need to prove anything. This is the crux of the matter, as without recording equipment, it's not possible to prove much.

I'd be happy to "not positively determine" the points in question...

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2010, 11:15
  #5999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,119
we don't know if any of the airworthiness issues had any impact on the flight
But we do know that the airworthiness issues had already had an impact on the pilots of that flight...................
Bertie Thruster is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2010, 11:32
  #6000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thor

If you don't mind me asking, why did you edit out the "I have always been against the "gross" negligence" part of your previous post?
I did not know I had! It probably fell off when I was correcting something else!

Any way - I have always been against the "Gross" negligence and for pilot error.

That sounds like you were suggesting gross negligence to me...
To you but not to me........

My post 6046
Unknown: What happened during the last minute of the flight
Quite - but many accidents have come up with verdicts in pre data recording aircraft without that knowledge. Balance of probability and all that.........and there is a lot of probability hanging around here.

Take a look at it from the other side. Two very competent pilots flew straight into a cloud cover and then a hill they knew was obscured by it when they had other clear and obvious options available. It as unlikely as any other scenario.
Now that does look like pilot error.

You're correct, of course. But if there was an emergency that needed their attention, it would probably have been relevant...
but does not excuse the fact that the aircraft must continue to be flown by whatever means available by one of the crew. (see airline accidents ad infinitum)


All the best, D
bast0n 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.