Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Flipster. Many thanks for your reply. After many years in the Service, I have never heard of a 'Star Chamber', and I certainly could not therefore have been a member of it. Did I miss something? Please say what it is and what is its memberhip. Regards..JP
With apologies to the film Fight Club, and for making light on this most serious of threads .....
Picture the scene - a dark and dusty basement somewhere in Whitehall. The camera zooms around a motley, and shifty looking bunch, of individuals, settling on ACM Sir Steve Dalton who in a strange, but sinister voice opens the proceedings ....
"Welcome to the RAF 'Star Chamber'. The first rule of the 'Star Chamber' is: you do not talk about the 'Star Chamber'. The second rule of the 'Star Chamber' is: you DO NOT talk about the 'Star Chamber'!"
And so it goes on!
Unfortunately JP will not get to see this as I think I'm still on his banned list!
Picture the scene - a dark and dusty basement somewhere in Whitehall. The camera zooms around a motley, and shifty looking bunch, of individuals, settling on ACM Sir Steve Dalton who in a strange, but sinister voice opens the proceedings ....
"Welcome to the RAF 'Star Chamber'. The first rule of the 'Star Chamber' is: you do not talk about the 'Star Chamber'. The second rule of the 'Star Chamber' is: you DO NOT talk about the 'Star Chamber'!"
And so it goes on!
Unfortunately JP will not get to see this as I think I'm still on his banned list!
Some of the members signed a letter to the press in January this year. It is clear who drafted it for them as the language is exactly the same as the usual MoD replies. No original thought whatsoever and certainly no idea that the facts they denied were, at the same time, being admitted by other parts of MoD.
In a desperate effort to protect ACAS and others, ACM Dalton also wrote saying that the FADEC software implementation being positively dangerous was known at the time (so wasn’t new evidence). In fact, all he succeeded in doing was admit that MoD knew this. As it was safety critical software, and they did nothing, this amounts to an admission of gross negligence. (We know they did nothing because the AAIB report confirmed the software was still in this original state).
In yet more dissembling, he claimed the status of the software was “factored into operating instructions”. Various inquiries heard witnesses describe those instructions as “incomprehensible”.
One assumes the Dalton Gang (sic) read the reply from fellows of the RAeS and belatedly realised they were ill-advised to admit this negligence. That would perhaps explain the RAF’s latest change of tack – the claim that ACAS (Bagnall) had seemingly delegated his entire authority across (and upwards) to CA and, in fact, the RAF had nothing whatsoever to do with releasing the Mk2 to service.
Another equally dissembling letter, signed by Graydon (CAS at the time) and Alcock (the RAF’s Chief Engineer from 1991-96 – whose reign oversaw the systematic dismantling of the airworthiness system) – oh dear, I won’t go any further. Even a child can see there is a conflict of interest there, with self preservation being their only motive.
In a desperate effort to protect ACAS and others, ACM Dalton also wrote saying that the FADEC software implementation being positively dangerous was known at the time (so wasn’t new evidence). In fact, all he succeeded in doing was admit that MoD knew this. As it was safety critical software, and they did nothing, this amounts to an admission of gross negligence. (We know they did nothing because the AAIB report confirmed the software was still in this original state).
In yet more dissembling, he claimed the status of the software was “factored into operating instructions”. Various inquiries heard witnesses describe those instructions as “incomprehensible”.
One assumes the Dalton Gang (sic) read the reply from fellows of the RAeS and belatedly realised they were ill-advised to admit this negligence. That would perhaps explain the RAF’s latest change of tack – the claim that ACAS (Bagnall) had seemingly delegated his entire authority across (and upwards) to CA and, in fact, the RAF had nothing whatsoever to do with releasing the Mk2 to service.
Another equally dissembling letter, signed by Graydon (CAS at the time) and Alcock (the RAF’s Chief Engineer from 1991-96 – whose reign oversaw the systematic dismantling of the airworthiness system) – oh dear, I won’t go any further. Even a child can see there is a conflict of interest there, with self preservation being their only motive.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
You hear but do not listen
You see but do not comprehend
Beags
I think I must press for a relaxation of the rules regarding the naming of 'that scottish officer'.
I propose that when his name used in conjunction with allegations of abysmal leadership and incompetent high-level regulatory process that borders on the negligent, then the use of his real name is to be encouraged. How say you?
You hear but do not listen
You see but do not comprehend
Beags
I think I must press for a relaxation of the rules regarding the naming of 'that scottish officer'.
I propose that when his name used in conjunction with allegations of abysmal leadership and incompetent high-level regulatory process that borders on the negligent, then the use of his real name is to be encouraged. How say you?
flip, I suspect that when Beags tells tuc:
he is making allusion to the ancient theatrical abhorrence of mention of the "Scottish Play" and the misfortune that results from doing so. I wonder if such misfortune would result from feeling such a Scottish collar, and if so for whom, the feeler or the felt?
You mentioned the name of The Scottish Officer......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally
Re: your 6550 - against my better instincts I posted to correct a misconception you appear to have. All I can say about CPLS is that the clue is in the name. Where it anything else then I'm sure the manufacturer would trumpet it via a suitably grandiose title. As for discussion about it - there's really not much to discuss; nothing more nothing less!
Re: your 6550 - against my better instincts I posted to correct a misconception you appear to have. All I can say about CPLS is that the clue is in the name. Where it anything else then I'm sure the manufacturer would trumpet it via a suitably grandiose title. As for discussion about it - there's really not much to discuss; nothing more nothing less!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmmnice
Shot yourself in the foot with that post didn't you, Einstein? – it is only you lot who are so taciturn about this equipment and it was relatively recently that I was made aware of the awkward name (CPLS in full) for it in the RAF – other NATO countries do not seem to gag at the mention of it.
Perhaps if it wasn't for this crash, more of you may have been more familiar with it – as it is, to not have mentioned in the inquiries such a piece of equipment that was fitted to HC2 Chinooks of the time, well, it would be a very long time before the taboo was raised, wouldn't it? 16 years is not enough.
Shot yourself in the foot with that post didn't you, Einstein? – it is only you lot who are so taciturn about this equipment and it was relatively recently that I was made aware of the awkward name (CPLS in full) for it in the RAF – other NATO countries do not seem to gag at the mention of it.
Perhaps if it wasn't for this crash, more of you may have been more familiar with it – as it is, to not have mentioned in the inquiries such a piece of equipment that was fitted to HC2 Chinooks of the time, well, it would be a very long time before the taboo was raised, wouldn't it? 16 years is not enough.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'you lot'.....................you don't know me Wally, so I'm not sure how you can pigeonhole me. That's the joy of an anonymous forum - you can go round and round the same old bo(u)y in a meaningless debate about nothing. It's not like I can come down to wherever you purport to be and put you straight over a pint or two...........or are you actually much closer?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter....
...we are still waiting for the list of co-ordinates from which you derived the mythical right turn.....????????.....yawn...
JP........
.....looking back I realise that I failed to answer your 6391........
.....further east along the coast of the mull there are large areas of flat benign shoreline , where they could have safely crossed the coast in marginal visibility.....
......I feel it highly likely that they were heading for one , or thought that they were.....
..I cite two specific locations where the longitude stored in the supertans for waypoint 'A' would only need one digit to be changed (corrupted) to move the waypoint from such a safe beach , to a rocky slope some distance inland , above the height that they were thought to be flying , and slightly closer to them.......(..ie they would arrive there earlier than expected....)......and near to where they ended up....
...(I chose to write in a slightly dramatic and simplistic style so that even non-technical persons like MP's might understand the plot)......
...regards Robin............
..link..
...we are still waiting for the list of co-ordinates from which you derived the mythical right turn.....????????.....yawn...
JP........
.....looking back I realise that I failed to answer your 6391........
.....further east along the coast of the mull there are large areas of flat benign shoreline , where they could have safely crossed the coast in marginal visibility.....
......I feel it highly likely that they were heading for one , or thought that they were.....
..I cite two specific locations where the longitude stored in the supertans for waypoint 'A' would only need one digit to be changed (corrupted) to move the waypoint from such a safe beach , to a rocky slope some distance inland , above the height that they were thought to be flying , and slightly closer to them.......(..ie they would arrive there earlier than expected....)......and near to where they ended up....
...(I chose to write in a slightly dramatic and simplistic style so that even non-technical persons like MP's might understand the plot)......
...regards Robin............
..link..
Last edited by Robin Clark; 10th Jul 2010 at 15:29. Reason: link added
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin Clark
I see you have not worked it out yet.
As this sort of analysis is basic to reconstruction of the flight, I am surprised that no one else on this thread has done it properly - at least you have had a go.
I am tired right now but will post in detail this evening, bar the usual distractions.
I see you have not worked it out yet.
As this sort of analysis is basic to reconstruction of the flight, I am surprised that no one else on this thread has done it properly - at least you have had a go.
I am tired right now but will post in detail this evening, bar the usual distractions.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
I am unsure of precisely what is going on here, as I can only read half of the posts. May I make a suggestion??
If you wished to avoid reading the posts of certain people, you would only have to do the following:
Top left hand corner of the page is 'User CP'.
Click on this, and down the left hand side click on 'Buddy/Ignore lists'.
This then allows you to input the names of any posters who you feel constantly post largely irrelevant, or far fetched theories, regarding the accident. Which in turn means you no longer have to read the inane ramblings of the deluded!
At least one of these posters may very well have been asked on numerous occasions to 'move along' and start their own thread. They have persistently chosen not to do so, and sadly bring this thread in to disrepute!
Please don't feed the 'Troll'!
I am unsure of precisely what is going on here, as I can only read half of the posts. May I make a suggestion??
If you wished to avoid reading the posts of certain people, you would only have to do the following:
Top left hand corner of the page is 'User CP'.
Click on this, and down the left hand side click on 'Buddy/Ignore lists'.
This then allows you to input the names of any posters who you feel constantly post largely irrelevant, or far fetched theories, regarding the accident. Which in turn means you no longer have to read the inane ramblings of the deluded!
At least one of these posters may very well have been asked on numerous occasions to 'move along' and start their own thread. They have persistently chosen not to do so, and sadly bring this thread in to disrepute!
Please don't feed the 'Troll'!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency Power......
dalek , chinook240 , etc......
..from reading the words of the AAIB I now realise that there is a little more to the story......
..when full emergency power is demanded , the PTIT (power turbine inlet temperature) increases due to the extra fuel being burnt etc...
....when it reaches a set temperature limit , a five second timer is started ...
...after the five seconds have elapsed and the temp. is still high , a dolls eye indicator is actuated on the panel .......
The AAIB do not regard these as reliable indications as they can easily be
jarred in a crash and changed or reset .
..at the same time it is arranged that an electro-mechanical counter will be incremented...........
......but the crash aircraft had one of the older counters which only count in whole minutes....(newer units count in seconds)........
......so emergency power could have been used for up to 59 seconds without changing the counter( if the counter had just passed the point where it was incremented due to a previous event . The numbers are recorded at maintenance time . )
So they could well have established full emergency power in the last 30 seconds of the flight without leaving any recorded evidence of its usage...
...which leads me to my next point .................
..if they did hit the ground almost immediately after crossing the coast as I have previously suggested , and one or both rear undercarriage units were then jammed in the compressed position.........or the rear undercarriage proximity sensors themselves were damaged directly to show that the aircraft was on the ground , it could have limited the control action available to them .......
..normally control function of the DASH actuator is limited to 50% whilst on the ground .....The cyclic stick only has 2 inches of rear movement instead of the more normal 4 inches (and one inch left or right ) ..........
(I realise that the AFCS's may ignore the undercarriage sensor/'s due to high airspeed......???????????.......).
...the normal collective/thrust range may have still been available to them ......but would it have increased forward speed more than rate of climb if they were restricted in the rearward range of cyclic stick.....??????.....so that they were limited to cruise ROC and could not climb out of trouble.....??????..
rgds Robin.....
..from reading the words of the AAIB I now realise that there is a little more to the story......
..when full emergency power is demanded , the PTIT (power turbine inlet temperature) increases due to the extra fuel being burnt etc...
....when it reaches a set temperature limit , a five second timer is started ...
...after the five seconds have elapsed and the temp. is still high , a dolls eye indicator is actuated on the panel .......
The AAIB do not regard these as reliable indications as they can easily be
jarred in a crash and changed or reset .
..at the same time it is arranged that an electro-mechanical counter will be incremented...........
......but the crash aircraft had one of the older counters which only count in whole minutes....(newer units count in seconds)........
......so emergency power could have been used for up to 59 seconds without changing the counter( if the counter had just passed the point where it was incremented due to a previous event . The numbers are recorded at maintenance time . )
So they could well have established full emergency power in the last 30 seconds of the flight without leaving any recorded evidence of its usage...
...which leads me to my next point .................
..if they did hit the ground almost immediately after crossing the coast as I have previously suggested , and one or both rear undercarriage units were then jammed in the compressed position.........or the rear undercarriage proximity sensors themselves were damaged directly to show that the aircraft was on the ground , it could have limited the control action available to them .......
..normally control function of the DASH actuator is limited to 50% whilst on the ground .....The cyclic stick only has 2 inches of rear movement instead of the more normal 4 inches (and one inch left or right ) ..........
(I realise that the AFCS's may ignore the undercarriage sensor/'s due to high airspeed......???????????.......).
...the normal collective/thrust range may have still been available to them ......but would it have increased forward speed more than rate of climb if they were restricted in the rearward range of cyclic stick.....??????.....so that they were limited to cruise ROC and could not climb out of trouble.....??????..
rgds Robin.....
Robin Clark:
Now ain't that the understatement to cap all understatements! The answer to all your speculations and propositions is that nobody knows why this aircraft crashed, not me, not you, not JP, nobody! One of the primary reasons for that is that the accident investigation was not conducted by the AAIB or any other professional air accident investigator, ie par for the course for a military accident. What wasn't par for the course for this accident was that the aircraft was Grossly Unairworthy prior to the crash, as were all other HC2's at that time. That was not revealed, discovered or considered by the BoI. It was not mentioned in the AOC's and AOC in C's Finding. It was not mentioned by the RAF or MOD to the FAI, the Coroner, or the HoL or HoC committees. Perhaps the fact that the authority responsible for supplying this duff aircraft to the Royal Air Force was also the authority responsible for enforcing the Airworthiness Regulations had a bearing? If the regulations had been followed then the aircraft could not have entered RAF service in that unairworthy condition. Whether or not it would still have crashed, I don't know, nor do you, nor JP, nobody! Unless....unless of course this accident were indeed to be properly investigated yet. By that I don't mean in a book, on the tele, in the papers, but by a professional air accident investigator, you know- someone like the AAIB who would add quite a lot to the story if allowed to, I'll bet!
..from reading the words of the AAIB I now realise that there is a little more to the story......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin - the cyclic is not physically limited to 2" aft on the ground - the limit is imposed to prevent droop stop damage when the collective is in the 'ground detent' (almost fully down) position
Likewise limited DASH authority on the ground is a bit of a red herring if considering control movement available
may I now continue with my lines?......'I must not feed WK, I must not feed WK'.......'
Likewise limited DASH authority on the ground is a bit of a red herring if considering control movement available
may I now continue with my lines?......'I must not feed WK, I must not feed WK'.......'
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
Ref your 6573 in respect of the AAIB.
I am sure your assertion that the cause of the crash was not investigated by the AAIB would raise the eyebrows of Mr Cable, Mr Parkinson and Mr Smart who all gave evidence to the HOL Committee in respect of the AAIB's role in the Accident Investigation.
Ref your 6573 in respect of the AAIB.
I am sure your assertion that the cause of the crash was not investigated by the AAIB would raise the eyebrows of Mr Cable, Mr Parkinson and Mr Smart who all gave evidence to the HOL Committee in respect of the AAIB's role in the Accident Investigation.
I am sure your assertion that the cause of the crash was not investigated by the AAIB would raise the eyebrows of Mr Cable, Mr Parkinson and Mr Smart who all gave evidence to the HOL Committee in respect of the AAIB's role in the Accident Investigation.
That's not the way I read Chugalug's post. My understanding is that the AAIB were on the periphery in that relevant information was withheld from them. Also, having read some but admittedly not all of the thread, it seems some of the AAIB's conclusions were ignored and others were twisted to suit MoD's theory. I think someone mentioned the toggle switch on the Tans that AAIB said was off, which is probably quite important as MoD's case is built on their assertion that the Tans and the rest of the nav was in perfect working order and displaying information correctly.
I think one of the points being made was that the AAIB, or at least Mr Cable, would probably welcome the opportunity to give further evidence to any new review now they now more of the facts.
Sorry Chugalug if this has stepped on your toes.