Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Chaps,
There are 2 distinct aspects to this whole sorry business:
1. There was insufficient cause for Wratten and Day to pin their finding of Gross Negligence on the 2 pilots.
2. Various senior people allegedly ran roughshod over their own airworthiness regulations whilst trying to bring the HC2 into service.
Now, one might consider that 2 may well have been instrumental in the accident, but most folk simply accept that confirmation of 1 is the more important. An independent judicial inquiry should resolve 1 fairly quickly, but would probably then lead to an in-depth investigation of 2 as more and more stones are turned over.
I feel strongly that 1 should be settled first - and quickly. Then 2 can be considered at length - but assuredly not just by some internal MoD inquiry.
There are 2 distinct aspects to this whole sorry business:
1. There was insufficient cause for Wratten and Day to pin their finding of Gross Negligence on the 2 pilots.
2. Various senior people allegedly ran roughshod over their own airworthiness regulations whilst trying to bring the HC2 into service.
Now, one might consider that 2 may well have been instrumental in the accident, but most folk simply accept that confirmation of 1 is the more important. An independent judicial inquiry should resolve 1 fairly quickly, but would probably then lead to an in-depth investigation of 2 as more and more stones are turned over.
I feel strongly that 1 should be settled first - and quickly. Then 2 can be considered at length - but assuredly not just by some internal MoD inquiry.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happen to agree with Beagle here. The finding of Gross negligence must be the first hurdle to overcome.
If (big If) the Gross negligence finding was overturned in favour of a "Pilot error" finding - would that satisfy ?
If (big If) the Gross negligence finding was overturned in favour of a "Pilot error" finding - would that satisfy ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather on Mull
Just a query.
SFFP suggests that only the crew would have known what the weather was at the crash site.
Dalek says "Weather at the crash site. Who knows?
Some nine or ten witnesses actually on the Mull including the lighthouse keeper who was, if I remember rightly, a met observer, stated that they were in fog. One witness stated that he heard but could not see the crash but estimated he could not have been more than 100 yards from it.
If the evidence of Mr Holbrook, the yachtsman is regarded as proof that the over water weather was VMC, why is the Mull observers evidence disregarded as to the weather at the crash site?
SFFP suggests that only the crew would have known what the weather was at the crash site.
Dalek says "Weather at the crash site. Who knows?
Some nine or ten witnesses actually on the Mull including the lighthouse keeper who was, if I remember rightly, a met observer, stated that they were in fog. One witness stated that he heard but could not see the crash but estimated he could not have been more than 100 yards from it.
If the evidence of Mr Holbrook, the yachtsman is regarded as proof that the over water weather was VMC, why is the Mull observers evidence disregarded as to the weather at the crash site?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a query.
SFFP suggests that only the crew would have known what the weather was at the crash site.
Dalek says "Weather at the crash site. Who knows?
Some nine or ten witnesses actually on the Mull including the lighthouse keeper who was, if I remember rightly, a met observer, stated that they were in fog. One witness stated that he heard but could not see the crash but estimated he could not have been more than 100 yards from it.
If the evidence of Mr Holbrook, the yachtsman is regarded as proof that the over water weather was VMC, why is the Mull observers evidence disregarded as to the weather at the crash site?
SFFP suggests that only the crew would have known what the weather was at the crash site.
Dalek says "Weather at the crash site. Who knows?
Some nine or ten witnesses actually on the Mull including the lighthouse keeper who was, if I remember rightly, a met observer, stated that they were in fog. One witness stated that he heard but could not see the crash but estimated he could not have been more than 100 yards from it.
If the evidence of Mr Holbrook, the yachtsman is regarded as proof that the over water weather was VMC, why is the Mull observers evidence disregarded as to the weather at the crash site?
Beagle:
I am very aware that those who have fought the good fight from the very start have had one aim and one aim only, to overturn the finding of the AOC and the AOC-in-C and to thus restore the reputations of the two deceased pilots. That was, and is, a laudable and very understandable cause, given the outrageous injustice done in the name of the Royal Air Force to two deceased officers both of whom were highly professional pilots. The reason why that campaign failed time and time again despite support from the Scottish FAI, the House of Lords, the House of Commons and even the Secretary of State for Defence of the time is summarised succinctly by you in item 2. above.
It was not until the gross lack of airworthiness of ZD576 and its sister Chinook Mk2's as Released to Service was revealed in this very thread that some explanation for the bizarre and obdurate attitude of the MOD to what to most (!) everyone else seemed blatant injustice, as clear as a pikestaff, began to make sense. Now if it were only the reputations at stake of what are now retired senior RAF Air Officers, there might be some merit in your call to sort out 1, before moving onto 2. But 2. is the problem. 2 would mean that the whole UK Military Airworthiness process was criminally compromised at the highest levels. 2 would mean that the MOD cannot be left to self regulate airworthiness while acting as operator and accident investigator as well. Far more than Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado or Sea King, Mull shows that the MOD as Judge and Jury of its own actions will convict everytime, but never itself! The MAA and the MAAIB are its puppets. I'm sorry but this is far to serious a matter of life and death to delude ourselves to the contrary. I bore you all time after time with my mantra that:
Self-Regulation never works, and in Aviation it Kills!
for one reason only, it is a self evident truth! Unless and until Military Airworthiness Regulation is wrested from the MOD, more avoidable accidents will kill more people. That does not even make sense in military terms, let alone the needless grief and misery that come with those accidents. With respect to you Beags, and others who are so like minded, you are wrong. The imperative is 2, for if that be true many more lives remain at risk and we must succeed where Mr. Haddon-Cave QC failed. Then we can put right past injustices.
1. There was insufficient cause for Wratten and Day to pin their finding of Gross Negligence on the 2 pilots.
2. Various senior people allegedly ran roughshod over their own airworthiness regulations whilst trying to bring the HC2 into service.
Now, one might consider that 2 may well have been instrumental in the accident, but most folk simply accept that confirmation of 1 is the more important.
2. Various senior people allegedly ran roughshod over their own airworthiness regulations whilst trying to bring the HC2 into service.
Now, one might consider that 2 may well have been instrumental in the accident, but most folk simply accept that confirmation of 1 is the more important.
It was not until the gross lack of airworthiness of ZD576 and its sister Chinook Mk2's as Released to Service was revealed in this very thread that some explanation for the bizarre and obdurate attitude of the MOD to what to most (!) everyone else seemed blatant injustice, as clear as a pikestaff, began to make sense. Now if it were only the reputations at stake of what are now retired senior RAF Air Officers, there might be some merit in your call to sort out 1, before moving onto 2. But 2. is the problem. 2 would mean that the whole UK Military Airworthiness process was criminally compromised at the highest levels. 2 would mean that the MOD cannot be left to self regulate airworthiness while acting as operator and accident investigator as well. Far more than Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado or Sea King, Mull shows that the MOD as Judge and Jury of its own actions will convict everytime, but never itself! The MAA and the MAAIB are its puppets. I'm sorry but this is far to serious a matter of life and death to delude ourselves to the contrary. I bore you all time after time with my mantra that:
Self-Regulation never works, and in Aviation it Kills!
for one reason only, it is a self evident truth! Unless and until Military Airworthiness Regulation is wrested from the MOD, more avoidable accidents will kill more people. That does not even make sense in military terms, let alone the needless grief and misery that come with those accidents. With respect to you Beags, and others who are so like minded, you are wrong. The imperative is 2, for if that be true many more lives remain at risk and we must succeed where Mr. Haddon-Cave QC failed. Then we can put right past injustices.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 28th May 2010 at 21:08.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vale of York
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the evidence of the Yachtsman for the height and speed of the Chinook should be considered carefully as it may suffer from the effects of habituation and scale. He said that he was unfamiliar with the Chinook but was used to seeing SAR helicopters. The Chinook is a much larger aircraft and it would subtend a greater angle at the eye of the observer. It would therefore give the impression of being lower than its true height. This would then result its appearing to travel a shorter distance in the same time, giving the impression of flying more slowly than its true speed.
The effects of scale in the opposite sense can be seen with radio control scale model aircraft. They appear to be flying much faster than their true speed. The Red Bull air races have more dramatic impact as a result of greater apparent speed because the aircraft which are flown in them are relatively small.
As the Chinook is about twice the size of typical SAR helicopters I think the estimates by the Yachtsman of its height and speed should be increased by a factor of about two. This would mean the Chinook would have been flying at around 140 knots, which would agree with other evidence for its speed at that stage of the flight.
The effects of scale in the opposite sense can be seen with radio control scale model aircraft. They appear to be flying much faster than their true speed. The Red Bull air races have more dramatic impact as a result of greater apparent speed because the aircraft which are flown in them are relatively small.
As the Chinook is about twice the size of typical SAR helicopters I think the estimates by the Yachtsman of its height and speed should be increased by a factor of about two. This would mean the Chinook would have been flying at around 140 knots, which would agree with other evidence for its speed at that stage of the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
sorry but I have to correct you on a couple of points........the BEL vor/dme at Aldergrove was on the northern perimeter of the airfield at the time of this flight , the frequency 117.2 is still in use although it has been moved a little SE since then .
You may be thinking of the older BEL vor on 116.2 which used to be south of Belfast and was discontinued at the time......
...on the Racal report , I think you need to read it again , the last operator input you refer to was 30 minutes before the flight departed ....
Arthur Rowe
the yachtsman was mistaken , if he really was where he thought , the Chinook would have passed about a mile away from him.......his impressions were never checked to authenticate , simply accepted..???????...
rgds Robin....
sorry but I have to correct you on a couple of points........the BEL vor/dme at Aldergrove was on the northern perimeter of the airfield at the time of this flight , the frequency 117.2 is still in use although it has been moved a little SE since then .
You may be thinking of the older BEL vor on 116.2 which used to be south of Belfast and was discontinued at the time......
...on the Racal report , I think you need to read it again , the last operator input you refer to was 30 minutes before the flight departed ....
Arthur Rowe
the yachtsman was mistaken , if he really was where he thought , the Chinook would have passed about a mile away from him.......his impressions were never checked to authenticate , simply accepted..???????...
rgds Robin....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
I was using 54:39':40” 6:13':48” for Bel VOR – where did you think it was?
The ATC fix was obviously referenced to their radar.
Last operator input position was 2 nmiles out on their way – I had made that last post in a hurry and may have dug out the wrong time and so will recheck when I have more time to go through the info again.
V813 and waypoint A define exactly a track of 027 mag (using mag var at the time).
Thank you for pointing out the time error.
I was using 54:39':40” 6:13':48” for Bel VOR – where did you think it was?
The ATC fix was obviously referenced to their radar.
Last operator input position was 2 nmiles out on their way – I had made that last post in a hurry and may have dug out the wrong time and so will recheck when I have more time to go through the info again.
V813 and waypoint A define exactly a track of 027 mag (using mag var at the time).
Thank you for pointing out the time error.
Now, one might consider that 2 may well have been instrumental in the accident, but most folk simply accept that confirmation of 1 is the more important. An independent judicial inquiry should resolve 1 fairly quickly, but would probably then lead to an in-depth investigation of 2 as more and more stones are turned over.
However, the Board of Inquiry was duty bound to address airworthiness because an Organisational failure of that process was a verdict open to it. It failed in that duty despite a compelling raft of evidence from a number of respected officers. Yet, MoD claims all “Airmanship, Technical and Legal” aspects have been thoroughly investigated. The reason why there is this 3-pronged test is because there is overlap; the three are inextricably linked.
Most contributors here express views according to their area of expertise. Mine is most definitely not airmanship, but I know enough about airworthiness to know that the Haddon-Cave report applies even more to Chinook than it does to Nimrod. Had airworthiness been addressed in 1994, or in 1991 when the new policy to cease routinely maintaining airworthiness was introduced, then the underlying causes of other accidents would (hopefully) have been resolved long ago. My view is that if these airworthiness failings had been on the table in 1994, the ROs and their fellow Stars would have quietly backed away and, perhaps, said “Cause not positively determined”. This requirement to base judgment on all the available evidence is a fundamental legal principle. Most readers know that MoD sought to hide similar evidence on both Nimrod and Hercules; the key players will tell you both cases were won as soon as (lack of) airworthiness was mentioned. I say, place all the evidence on the table and let an independent legal review assess it as a whole.
Only then would it be time to treat these failings separately.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur Rowe:
Interesting theory. I can only assume you are unaware of the relative fuselage lengths of Sea King and Chinook?
Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) was/is an instrument maker by trade, and was extraordinarily measured in his assessments. Extremely persuasive in the witness box at the FAI.
As the Chinook is about twice the size of typical SAR helicopters
Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) was/is an instrument maker by trade, and was extraordinarily measured in his assessments. Extremely persuasive in the witness box at the FAI.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 29th May 2010 at 09:10.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bos,
I don't think anybody disregards the lighthouse keepers version of the weather. It is likely, indeed very likely that the crash site was in fog.
But take a look at some of the photos published on this site. The edges of a fogbank can be very well defined, so even an observer an "estimated" 100m from the crash site may not be able to see his nose, while 50m away there may be unlimited visibility in three directions. What we are looking for is certainty, not opinion. There was no (surviving) observer at the point of impact.
Mr Holbrook does not show conclusively that the crew were legal VMC. However, if he could see the Mull and the aircraft at ranges of around 2nms, it is likely / probable that the crew could do the same. In other words there is nothing in his testimony to show illegal low flying.
I don't think anybody disregards the lighthouse keepers version of the weather. It is likely, indeed very likely that the crash site was in fog.
But take a look at some of the photos published on this site. The edges of a fogbank can be very well defined, so even an observer an "estimated" 100m from the crash site may not be able to see his nose, while 50m away there may be unlimited visibility in three directions. What we are looking for is certainty, not opinion. There was no (surviving) observer at the point of impact.
Mr Holbrook does not show conclusively that the crew were legal VMC. However, if he could see the Mull and the aircraft at ranges of around 2nms, it is likely / probable that the crew could do the same. In other words there is nothing in his testimony to show illegal low flying.
Last edited by dalek; 29th May 2010 at 10:13.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TandemRotor wrote
<<Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) was/is an instrument maker by trade, and was extraordinarily measured in his assessments. Extremely persuasive in the witness box at the FAI. >>
BUT the judgement of the height of aircraft height and speed is difficult, especially an unfamiliar a/c against a backdrop of grey sky.
Select committee
70. Mr Holbrook explained to us that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see photographs of a Chinook at different heights and ranges, in order the better to estimate the height and speed of the aircraft when he saw it. He clearly felt that he would have been in a better position to assist the Board had he been furnished with such information. We do not know why the Board did not accede to his request or afford him the opportunity of seeing a Chinook in flight.
<<Mr Holbrook (the yachtsman) was/is an instrument maker by trade, and was extraordinarily measured in his assessments. Extremely persuasive in the witness box at the FAI. >>
BUT the judgement of the height of aircraft height and speed is difficult, especially an unfamiliar a/c against a backdrop of grey sky.
Select committee
70. Mr Holbrook explained to us that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see photographs of a Chinook at different heights and ranges, in order the better to estimate the height and speed of the aircraft when he saw it. He clearly felt that he would have been in a better position to assist the Board had he been furnished with such information. We do not know why the Board did not accede to his request or afford him the opportunity of seeing a Chinook in flight.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather on Mull
Dalek
If the observer was an estimated 100 metres, lets be generous and say 200 metres, from the crash, then the crash was 100 (200) metres from the observer who was in thick fog. A moot point as to how the aircraft could have been VMC, 1000metres viz in all directions. However, I accept your point that, once again, there is no absolute certainty.
SFFP
By your definition, if an aircraft crashed in poor viz on the threshhold of a runway, then ATC are not at the crash site.
Looking a bit wider, prior to this particular case and thinking back to 35 years worth of reading accident reports, I'm hard pushed to think of a case in which a number of witnesses stated that a hill feature was in fog and an aircraft hit that feature, 810 ft up, yet doubt remained about the weather conditions on that feature.
If the observer was an estimated 100 metres, lets be generous and say 200 metres, from the crash, then the crash was 100 (200) metres from the observer who was in thick fog. A moot point as to how the aircraft could have been VMC, 1000metres viz in all directions. However, I accept your point that, once again, there is no absolute certainty.
SFFP
By your definition, if an aircraft crashed in poor viz on the threshhold of a runway, then ATC are not at the crash site.
Looking a bit wider, prior to this particular case and thinking back to 35 years worth of reading accident reports, I'm hard pushed to think of a case in which a number of witnesses stated that a hill feature was in fog and an aircraft hit that feature, 810 ft up, yet doubt remained about the weather conditions on that feature.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew
Just a quick question:
If I were standing in a fog patch (possibly 'hill fog'), and even if others were too; how could we know what people standing outside that fog patch could see? Or indeed how far those conditions extended?
Of course if we had evidence from someone who was outside that hill fog, a yachtsman perhaps, he may be able to enlighten us??
However, if the implications of such approximation of weather were significant, perhaps we would err on the side of caution, rather than on the side of certainty, when reaching a conclusion?
Just a quick question:
If I were standing in a fog patch (possibly 'hill fog'), and even if others were too; how could we know what people standing outside that fog patch could see? Or indeed how far those conditions extended?
Of course if we had evidence from someone who was outside that hill fog, a yachtsman perhaps, he may be able to enlighten us??
However, if the implications of such approximation of weather were significant, perhaps we would err on the side of caution, rather than on the side of certainty, when reaching a conclusion?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bos
yet doubt remained about the weather conditions on that feature
I can see little point in any discussions revolving around the point of impact in terms of weather. I would suggest there is no-one who can claim the site of the crash was clear of fog or orographic cloud. I don't think SFFP is actually suggesting that.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
Yes the current BEL vor is at the location given , north of the threshold for runway 17 , slightly east of the centreline....My old documents from 1994 give a slightly different loc. but probably due to rounding up/down the numbers...........
..more importantly , I think that is is extremely unlikely that they maintained the track of 027 mag. for long , as this would entail flying over mountains up to 1400 feet high on their way to the Irish coast.......a waste of time and the old icing questions again......
rgds Robin....
Yes the current BEL vor is at the location given , north of the threshold for runway 17 , slightly east of the centreline....My old documents from 1994 give a slightly different loc. but probably due to rounding up/down the numbers...........
..more importantly , I think that is is extremely unlikely that they maintained the track of 027 mag. for long , as this would entail flying over mountains up to 1400 feet high on their way to the Irish coast.......a waste of time and the old icing questions again......
rgds Robin....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Bos - I think we are wandering away from the issue here - I cannot believe that anyone will argue that the crash site was not almost certainly 100% solid IMC. That is not really the issue. The issue is how the helicopter got there. We have those who 'imply' they know it was negligence and that the crew deliberately entered IMC. We have those who do not know why (that in reality includes the BoI and the Reviewing officers).
I can see little point in any discussions revolving around the point of impact in terms of weather. I would suggest there is no-one who can claim the site of the crash was clear of fog or orographic cloud. I don't think SFFP is actually suggesting that.
I can see little point in any discussions revolving around the point of impact in terms of weather. I would suggest there is no-one who can claim the site of the crash was clear of fog or orographic cloud. I don't think SFFP is actually suggesting that.
It is not my intention to be rude however the inclusion in red best sums up my thoughts with regard to the weather.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather on Mull
This discussion comes down, as it has always done, to what is 100% proof. We are splitting hairs extremely finely because it is only a split hair between 99.5% probability and 100% certainty.
BOAC
It seems to me that SFFP is arguing that because there was no-one who saw the actual crash and that it is conceivably possible that the aircraft was VMC, then there is no absolute proof that the aircraft was IMC and the case falls. With respect, I do think that the weather is one of the issues.
Tandemrotor
If one walker had reported being in fog, he could possibly have been in a 'fog patch'. If ten walkers on the hill in different locations all stated that they were in fog then they were not standing in a 'fog patch' but on a fog-covered hill. For the aircraft to have been operating within limits there would have to have been a corridor giving 1000 metres viz in all directions with a 250' cloudbase that was not evident to any of the walkers, never mind the guy 100 metres away.
BOAC
It seems to me that SFFP is arguing that because there was no-one who saw the actual crash and that it is conceivably possible that the aircraft was VMC, then there is no absolute proof that the aircraft was IMC and the case falls. With respect, I do think that the weather is one of the issues.
Tandemrotor
If one walker had reported being in fog, he could possibly have been in a 'fog patch'. If ten walkers on the hill in different locations all stated that they were in fog then they were not standing in a 'fog patch' but on a fog-covered hill. For the aircraft to have been operating within limits there would have to have been a corridor giving 1000 metres viz in all directions with a 250' cloudbase that was not evident to any of the walkers, never mind the guy 100 metres away.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boslandew, a few very quick questions if I may:
1) What heights were these walkers?
2) Is it possible they were in cloud, with clear conditions below??
3) If they described visibility as 'coming and going', how might this phenomena appear to an a/c approaching this localised cloud?
4) How would you calculate a 99.5% probability?
I'm obliged
1) What heights were these walkers?
2) Is it possible they were in cloud, with clear conditions below??
3) If they described visibility as 'coming and going', how might this phenomena appear to an a/c approaching this localised cloud?
4) How would you calculate a 99.5% probability?
I'm obliged
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather on Mull
Tandemrotor
1 The report doesn't give heights. One walker reported that, in ten metres viz, he thought the aircraft was going to hit him but still couldn't see it.
2 It is of course possible but there is little to suggest that it was.
3 They didn't describe visibility as 'coming and going', they reported variously 'thick' or 'dense' fog, viz 15 metres, being unable to see the aircraft because it was 'up in the mist'.
4. You got me. I should have said a very high probability, see comments from BOAC and SFFP
1 The report doesn't give heights. One walker reported that, in ten metres viz, he thought the aircraft was going to hit him but still couldn't see it.
2 It is of course possible but there is little to suggest that it was.
3 They didn't describe visibility as 'coming and going', they reported variously 'thick' or 'dense' fog, viz 15 metres, being unable to see the aircraft because it was 'up in the mist'.
4. You got me. I should have said a very high probability, see comments from BOAC and SFFP