Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 80
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dalek
ALL this has been discussed before!! Remember my posts on Oooslem birds!
To save you the effort this is what I said recently.
and yes to another post - it is quite possible that if they had a problem both heads could have been down in the cockpit etc etc etc.................ad infinitums past.
Believe whom you will - Sqdn Ldr Burke or whoever else has a view.....
ALL this has been discussed before!! Remember my posts on Oooslem birds!
Even if the crew went IMC, to be negligent it would have to be deliberate and with the aircraft under control. Sqn Ldr Burke, the leading expert of the time, says this "may" not have been the case.
If you read my posts I have always been of the opinion that a verdict of pilot error was much nearer the mark than gross negligence.
Believe whom you will - Sqdn Ldr Burke or whoever else has a view.....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP - thanks for revisiting that post. I think the vast majority here agree with #5302 which ably answered your post, and in fact since July we have gathered even more indications that 1) was correct and it begins to look as if a lot of the rest were too.
JP
I had quite forgotten your excellent summary at post #5301, which I hope you don't mind me copying below.
You will be aware 1. and 2. are now established facts following MoD's (perhaps inadvertent) release of key documents which they had withheld from all previous inquiries. (A serious offence).
The emergence of these documents renders your 5th point academic - there is no need to "blow the whistle" as MoD have held their hands up.
On point 3. there is no doubt the RAF hierarchy blamed the pilots. It is also beyond doubt that, if the above documents and facts had been known to the inquiry teams, said senior officers would have faced severe censure, if not legal action. (You will be aware two serving officers are being investigated following the Nimrod Review - their alleged offences are nothing compared to those perpetrated on Chinook). Deliberately misrepresenting the facts and issuing a fabricated CAR and RTS, thereby knowingly endangering aircrew, is a serious offence.
On point 4. I cannot speak for all these departments but, for example, the record shows the MoD(PE) Project Director pleaded with his bosses to take heed of Boscombe's advice that the aircraft should not be declared airworthy. I also understand the formal legal advice was against the gross negligence verdict. If "Flight Safety" or "Engineering" signed up to a decision to ignore Boscombe's "positively dangerous" advice, then I would describe that as criminal. It is far more likely that they were not told; just as the BoI, HofL, HofC, Sheriff and, most importantly, the aircrew, were not.
Again, thank you for reminding us of the facts.
I had quite forgotten your excellent summary at post #5301, which I hope you don't mind me copying below.
I note the lack of reasoned response, so may I remind you of the reason that led to my joining this discussion some three years ago. It was the allegation that:
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.
The emergence of these documents renders your 5th point academic - there is no need to "blow the whistle" as MoD have held their hands up.
On point 3. there is no doubt the RAF hierarchy blamed the pilots. It is also beyond doubt that, if the above documents and facts had been known to the inquiry teams, said senior officers would have faced severe censure, if not legal action. (You will be aware two serving officers are being investigated following the Nimrod Review - their alleged offences are nothing compared to those perpetrated on Chinook). Deliberately misrepresenting the facts and issuing a fabricated CAR and RTS, thereby knowingly endangering aircrew, is a serious offence.
On point 4. I cannot speak for all these departments but, for example, the record shows the MoD(PE) Project Director pleaded with his bosses to take heed of Boscombe's advice that the aircraft should not be declared airworthy. I also understand the formal legal advice was against the gross negligence verdict. If "Flight Safety" or "Engineering" signed up to a decision to ignore Boscombe's "positively dangerous" advice, then I would describe that as criminal. It is far more likely that they were not told; just as the BoI, HofL, HofC, Sheriff and, most importantly, the aircrew, were not.
Again, thank you for reminding us of the facts.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 65
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bast0n
Seldom
As they hit the hill the observers on the ground were in thick fog but were some distance from and not in visual contact with the impact point..................IMC is highly likely but an assumption never the less.
As they hit the hill the observers on the ground were in thick fog but were some distance from and not in visual contact with the impact point..................IMC is highly likely but an assumption never the less.
One of the things my 3 tours on SH taught me is that the weather does strange things at times
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 24th Mar 2010 at 15:32.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Boac. 5302 by no means answered my earlier post, and that reply was of course posted by Chugaluk2 who, you will recall, talked about the crew being 'stiched up' by the Air Marshals. A disgraceful slur on our fine Service.
Tucumseh. Is that really all you have to say?
I stand by what I have said. Please try harder. John Purdey
Tucumseh. Is that really all you have to say?
I stand by what I have said. Please try harder. John Purdey
JP
The disgraceful slur on two pilots is what has brought the service into disrepute. Together with ignoring basic airworthiness in the pursuit of career advancement.
I assume you have not read the Haddon-Cave's report. Why, following that, are Senior Officers under investigation?
The disgraceful slur on two pilots is what has brought the service into disrepute. Together with ignoring basic airworthiness in the pursuit of career advancement.
I assume you have not read the Haddon-Cave's report. Why, following that, are Senior Officers under investigation?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP - I fear our 'loyalties' will never match but in my opinion, if all we are seeing develop here is true, it is the
which are
Air Marshals.
A disgraceful slur on our fine Service.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley
I am rather disappointed in your recent posts:
I believe that I have adequately described (in numerous posts) the weather most probable on the Mull at the time of the crash – it was prevalent at that time of day, at that time of year, with a southerly blowing – you have had 15 years to visit the area and see for yourself; it would not have concealed the presence of the Mull but it would have made visual judgement of range very difficult if needing to approach a specific point on the Mull such that if they had been using some navigation system reference that was incorrect there would not have been the visual cues to alert them to any error. They would not have been in IMC until the last few seconds.
My analysis gave me the strong conviction that they were approaching a specific point under control and that they would not have been doing so in those conditions without a local reference in which they had confidence.
Had they crossed the known LZ on 035 mag, they had only to start a banked turn to the left when they crossed the shoreline to swing around the lighthouse for a safe wave-off and so were not doing anything wrong in approaching this spot at speed if they had guidance to that LZ.
The CPLS was the only candidate system that could have been so used and so I have been insisting that it must have been used, despite this system apparently being a taboo subject – the evidence for its use was the analysis and now that it seems that the kit was fitted, it is really a case of QED.
The ground set (PRC112) only needed to have been ½ mile or so up the hill to explain all that is known about this crash; with their oblique approach angle to the shore, this explains their premature turn onto 035 and their apparent surprise at the proximity to the slope. Not bringing this equipment to the attention of the civil authorities has wasted inquiries that may have been able to establish just blame on whoever messed up this exercise and establsh whether it was accidental or wilful.
There was no evidence whatsoever for a control jam or engine control problem. When we met in Perth all those years ago and I was concerned that they had been misled by DME, did you not know of the CPLS that you did not mention it? Do you not think that the air accident investigators should have been informed of a significant local navigation system being on-board? Does this not make the verdicts against the pilots void, that such a system was not considered? What a stinking disgrace.
I am rather disappointed in your recent posts:
I believe that I have adequately described (in numerous posts) the weather most probable on the Mull at the time of the crash – it was prevalent at that time of day, at that time of year, with a southerly blowing – you have had 15 years to visit the area and see for yourself; it would not have concealed the presence of the Mull but it would have made visual judgement of range very difficult if needing to approach a specific point on the Mull such that if they had been using some navigation system reference that was incorrect there would not have been the visual cues to alert them to any error. They would not have been in IMC until the last few seconds.
My analysis gave me the strong conviction that they were approaching a specific point under control and that they would not have been doing so in those conditions without a local reference in which they had confidence.
Had they crossed the known LZ on 035 mag, they had only to start a banked turn to the left when they crossed the shoreline to swing around the lighthouse for a safe wave-off and so were not doing anything wrong in approaching this spot at speed if they had guidance to that LZ.
The CPLS was the only candidate system that could have been so used and so I have been insisting that it must have been used, despite this system apparently being a taboo subject – the evidence for its use was the analysis and now that it seems that the kit was fitted, it is really a case of QED.
The ground set (PRC112) only needed to have been ½ mile or so up the hill to explain all that is known about this crash; with their oblique approach angle to the shore, this explains their premature turn onto 035 and their apparent surprise at the proximity to the slope. Not bringing this equipment to the attention of the civil authorities has wasted inquiries that may have been able to establish just blame on whoever messed up this exercise and establsh whether it was accidental or wilful.
There was no evidence whatsoever for a control jam or engine control problem. When we met in Perth all those years ago and I was concerned that they had been misled by DME, did you not know of the CPLS that you did not mention it? Do you not think that the air accident investigators should have been informed of a significant local navigation system being on-board? Does this not make the verdicts against the pilots void, that such a system was not considered? What a stinking disgrace.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Look...
JP
I had not disputed the Fog signal station idea because I thought it was so silly it was a joke , although I think some guy wrote a book based apon it......
the fog station is on a short part of East/West coast , whereas the lighthouse is on a North/South section of coast .............. pretty basic error or what.??..
I don't think even my daughter would have made that mistake when she was 8.....
I have a scenario which I think is plausible , but runs to over 1000 words now , so I have put it on my own web site , I still have to add diagrams so will post a link when its ready....
rgds Robin....
I had not disputed the Fog signal station idea because I thought it was so silly it was a joke , although I think some guy wrote a book based apon it......
the fog station is on a short part of East/West coast , whereas the lighthouse is on a North/South section of coast .............. pretty basic error or what.??..
I don't think even my daughter would have made that mistake when she was 8.....
I have a scenario which I think is plausible , but runs to over 1000 words now , so I have put it on my own web site , I still have to add diagrams so will post a link when its ready....
rgds Robin....
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Yes, I would have to agree - the unsupportable opinions of those stuffed shirts that call themselves Air Marshalls is, indeed, a disgraceful slur. But then the RAF is but a shadow of the proud service I believe I started in. Now, sadly, it is a top-heavy crumbling facade, with the stuffed shirts falling over themselves continuing to climb the greasy pole, at the top of which is a lofty view of bugger all.
tucumseh,
I believe you rattled JP's cage - nice one!
A disgraceful slur on our fine Service.
tucumseh,
I believe you rattled JP's cage - nice one!
DC3
Sadly, JP is in denial. It is a well known and treatable condition, but the patient has to want to be treated.
Lets see if David Cameron lives up to the promises in his letter - not long to wait.
Sadly, JP is in denial. It is a well known and treatable condition, but the patient has to want to be treated.
Lets see if David Cameron lives up to the promises in his letter - not long to wait.
Fitter I agree with your diagnosis, the catch is that JP has to accept it also, but that is his misfortune. The diagnosis by tucumseh of JP's post #5301 does not agree with JP's proposition that his itemised points are simply incredible, for they have been shown to be essentially the truth, more denial working there I'm afraid. What it does do is to show clearly that if we want the dreadful cost of the Chinook, Sea King, Tornado, Hercules and Nimrod accidents, that killed 62 people and that all had airworthiness deficiencies, not to be repeated ad infinitum then the imperative is to return full airworthiness provision to the UK Military Airfleet. The proposed means of doing that, the "Independent within the MOD" MAA, will not work. It is a turkey. It will only work if it becomes an "Independent outside the MOD" MAA. That is the challenge now. Cameron may well restore the reputations of the deceased Chinook Pilots, he should, but he must also reform the monstrous carbuncle that is the MOD, and start by making the MAA separate and independent of it.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 25th Mar 2010 at 12:12.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Just to save people the trouble of searching back for item 5301, this was the very serious allegation to which I referred:
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.
I hope this helps. Regards JP
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.
I hope this helps. Regards JP
Except for item 5; several whistle blowers, most notably Sqn. Ldr. Burke have exposed the airworthiness failings detailed in item 2 of JPs list.
One question is whether those who ordered him not to do so are guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
One question is whether those who ordered him not to do so are guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
