Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orographic Cloud
Many on this thread seem to have been confused by the weather conditions pertaining on the day of the accident. The confusion seems to revolve around the apparent impossibility of a helicopter flying around VMC in close proximity to the "Fog" described by the lighthouse keeper at the crash-site.
I don't really want to start another round of discussion on the subject, but took this photo a year or two ago, whilst flying just off the East coast of Ireland,looking towards the South West (so quite relevant to the Mull of Kintyre, where the same kind of situation frequently occurs).
Notice that it is easy to see the line of the coast where the cloud starts and that even flying 100m away from the edge of the cloud, along the line of the coast, would be perfectly safe, as the cloud edge is so well-defined and the visibility is perfectly OK.
I believe this photo demonstrates, once and for all, that, assuming the crew's intention, having changed the TANS waypoint, was to follow the (easily visible) line of the coast, it would take something to go wrong with the aircraft for them to enter the orographic cloud and crash into the hillside. It also demonstrates how the yachtsman and the lighthouse keeper could have such differing views of the weather.
Let's have no more comments along the lines of "The lighthouse keeper said the hillside was in fog, they crashed into the hillside, were therefore flying IMC and were therefore negligent" - that logic simply doesn't work as even the daftest pilot on the planet would not have deliberately flown into cloud such as that in the photo, when there was so much clear air around in which to remain. I hope this changes a few minds.
I don't really want to start another round of discussion on the subject, but took this photo a year or two ago, whilst flying just off the East coast of Ireland,looking towards the South West (so quite relevant to the Mull of Kintyre, where the same kind of situation frequently occurs).
Notice that it is easy to see the line of the coast where the cloud starts and that even flying 100m away from the edge of the cloud, along the line of the coast, would be perfectly safe, as the cloud edge is so well-defined and the visibility is perfectly OK.
I believe this photo demonstrates, once and for all, that, assuming the crew's intention, having changed the TANS waypoint, was to follow the (easily visible) line of the coast, it would take something to go wrong with the aircraft for them to enter the orographic cloud and crash into the hillside. It also demonstrates how the yachtsman and the lighthouse keeper could have such differing views of the weather.
Let's have no more comments along the lines of "The lighthouse keeper said the hillside was in fog, they crashed into the hillside, were therefore flying IMC and were therefore negligent" - that logic simply doesn't work as even the daftest pilot on the planet would not have deliberately flown into cloud such as that in the photo, when there was so much clear air around in which to remain. I hope this changes a few minds.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB - a good post, but I fear you are posting to:-
A) Those who know and understand low-flying weather conditions
B) The intransigent who don't
The opinions of neither will be influenced by the picture. Sad but true in the case of B
A) Those who know and understand low-flying weather conditions
B) The intransigent who don't
The opinions of neither will be influenced by the picture. Sad but true in the case of B
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meadowbank,
I fully with BOAC, but would go slightly further and state that without a sound working knowledge of Rotary low level Op's it is always going to be a big ask for some to grasp what is being suggested with this verdict
I fully with BOAC, but would go slightly further and state that without a sound working knowledge of Rotary low level Op's it is always going to be a big ask for some to grasp what is being suggested with this verdict
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree, SFFP, but the cloud in that particular picture would not cause more than a moment's thought at any speed, 140kts, 420kts or 540kts.
Before one of the gainsayers points it out, of course we all recognise that the weather 'they' experienced was not as 'nice' as in that picture, but the learning points remain.
What is so odd is the the R O's, who were 'low-level' experienced, should come to such a bizarre conclusion on in-flight conditions with no supporting evidence. On second thoughts, perhaps it really is 'not so odd'?
Before one of the gainsayers points it out, of course we all recognise that the weather 'they' experienced was not as 'nice' as in that picture, but the learning points remain.
What is so odd is the the R O's, who were 'low-level' experienced, should come to such a bizarre conclusion on in-flight conditions with no supporting evidence. On second thoughts, perhaps it really is 'not so odd'?
BOAC:
What I find odd is that some who post here, despite testimony from those involved in the airworthiness process as to how it was suborned by Air Rank officers to the extent that this aircraft was known by those very senior officers to have been Grossly Unairworthy from RTS until it crashed, killing all 29 occupants, seem to still accept the bizarre finding of W&D that nonetheless the pilots were the ones who were Grossly Negligent! If such a process had been carried out by Junior Officers against their subordinates they would no doubt be the first ones to denounce such a cowardly misuse of power, and rightly so. Droit du Seigneur, perhaps?
What is so odd is the the R O's, who were 'low-level' experienced, should come to such a bizarre conclusion on in-flight conditions with no supporting evidence. On second thoughts, perhaps it really is 'not so odd'?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking with photos, this is one I took of the Mull a few weeks back (sorry for the quality - iPhone 
). Anyway, you can just about make out the high ground immediately to the left of the Mull (quarter left) and the coastline to the South but the area of the lighthouse is covered in low cloud. You must bear in mind that this picture was taken from about 15nm away and everywhere else had fantastic visibility. As meadowbank implies, this type of localised cloud/mist/fog is quite common in the Irish Sea.
). Anyway, you can just about make out the high ground immediately to the left of the Mull (quarter left) and the coastline to the South but the area of the lighthouse is covered in low cloud. You must bear in mind that this picture was taken from about 15nm away and everywhere else had fantastic visibility. As meadowbank implies, this type of localised cloud/mist/fog is quite common in the Irish Sea.
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 25th May 2010 at 20:48.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this photo demonstrates, once and for all, that, assuming the crew's intention, having changed the TANS waypoint, was to follow the (easily visible) line of the coast, it would take something to go wrong with the aircraft for them to enter the orographic cloud and crash into the hillside.
Or of course they could have been lost.
But not beyond all possible doubt................
Or of course they could have been lost.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or they could have been a competent crew flying a serviceable aircraft who negligently failed to maintain VFR
2. Evidence supplied by MoD confirms unserviceabilities in the aircraft and, more damningly, that a key component was considered positively dangerous. (Something that is dangerous, by definition, cannot pass a valid serviceability test, as that test cannot be approved until the design and installation of the unit under test is first proven safe. By MoD's own admission, that last had not been achieved).
3. Ditto, MoD confirms most of the Nav system was not cleared to ANY level, which learned pilots tell me makes a transition to IFR a somewhat dodgy proposition.
I see Menzies Campbell has kept HIS promise. I do hope Cameron keeps his. Either way, the above MoD statements will be held against them.
Also, I hope Sir Donald Spiers will be invited to explain why he completely ignored HIS OWN mandatory instructions (CA Instructions) and signed a fabricated CA Release. And ACM Bagnall will, similarly, be asked why he agreed to accept such a CAR, given the regulations required him to make a written acceptance before he signed the RTS.
In a fair world, that should take about 10 minutes, swiftly followed by a hasty climbdown by MoD and knocks on several doors. (The Provost Marshall is already busy dealing with lesser offences on Nimrod but I'm sure Strathclyde Police will gladly help).
Good call, flip. You can write to your MP here:
TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament? Hansard++
My twopenneth:
TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament? Hansard++
My twopenneth:
Dear Chug's MP,
I was delighted to see here BBC News - Ministry of Defence considers Chinook crash review
that Sir Menzies Campbell MP has urged the SoS for Defence, Dr Liam Fox MP, to announce a review into the crash of Chinook Mk2 ZD576 on 2June1994 on the Mull of Kintyre that killed all 29 occupants. Given that the RAF Board of Inquiry at the time found that the aircraft was airworthy and that evidence since is that it was not, in company with all other Chinook Mk2's that were Released to Service over the urgent protestations of the Boscombe Down Test Pilots immediately prior to this tragedy , and that the finding of the Air Marshals Wratten and Day that the pilots were Grossly Negligent (based on no direct evidence whatsoever) was in direct contravention of RAF procedures governing such findings concerning deceased aircrew, I hope that you would also urge the SoS to initiate such a review at the earliest opportunity. A campaign against this 16 year old monstrous injustice has called for the reputations of the pilots, Flt Lts Jonathon Tapper and Richard Cook to be restored by overturning the Air Marshals' finding. Once that has happened an investigation into the Gross Unairworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 fleet at that time should follow, for it was in my view a far worse example of how the MOD reneged on its duty of care by flouting its own airworthiness regulations than was even the Nimrod, already the subject of a damning review by Mr Haddon-Cave QC.
Yours sincerely,
Chugalug2
I was delighted to see here BBC News - Ministry of Defence considers Chinook crash review
that Sir Menzies Campbell MP has urged the SoS for Defence, Dr Liam Fox MP, to announce a review into the crash of Chinook Mk2 ZD576 on 2June1994 on the Mull of Kintyre that killed all 29 occupants. Given that the RAF Board of Inquiry at the time found that the aircraft was airworthy and that evidence since is that it was not, in company with all other Chinook Mk2's that were Released to Service over the urgent protestations of the Boscombe Down Test Pilots immediately prior to this tragedy , and that the finding of the Air Marshals Wratten and Day that the pilots were Grossly Negligent (based on no direct evidence whatsoever) was in direct contravention of RAF procedures governing such findings concerning deceased aircrew, I hope that you would also urge the SoS to initiate such a review at the earliest opportunity. A campaign against this 16 year old monstrous injustice has called for the reputations of the pilots, Flt Lts Jonathon Tapper and Richard Cook to be restored by overturning the Air Marshals' finding. Once that has happened an investigation into the Gross Unairworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 fleet at that time should follow, for it was in my view a far worse example of how the MOD reneged on its duty of care by flouting its own airworthiness regulations than was even the Nimrod, already the subject of a damning review by Mr Haddon-Cave QC.
Yours sincerely,
Chugalug2
Channel 4 News, which has always given the story a fair wind, says the inquiry is confirmed.
Officials confirm Chinook crash review - Channel 4 News
Result!.... Let's hope so.
airsound
Officials confirm Chinook crash review - Channel 4 News
Result!.... Let's hope so.
airsound