Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on maps.......
..in ACM Day's slides which he presented to the HOL....one of the mistakes he makes is assuming the OS grid on a map of the Mull is aligned with true north......(slides 25,25a,25b)
..this is a common mis-conception as I recall from the time I used to teach map-reading......
..in fact this is only true at 2 degrees west.......that's RAF Lynham/Poole Harbour longitude for us in the south...........on the Mull of Kintyre OS map , the grid is pointing something like three degrees to the west of true north......(RAF Odiham btw shows on a local OS map as having the grid angled about 1/2 degree to the East of true..) ......
...so how is this relevant....?????............
...I have always felt that waypoint 'A' was wrong...........I cannot believe that anyone selects a waypoint 1/3 of the way up a mountain then flies towards it at something close to the same height.........even in good weather.............
..if one studies an OS 1:25 000 or 1:50,000 map of the Mull , starting from the bottom left hand corner , which is closest to the lighthouse , and then wrongly plotting the position of waypoint 'A' by using the latitude and longitude as marked on the borders of the map , but then 'pretend/assume' that the grid is pointing to true north and mark the position with lines parallel to the grid , we find that our waypoint 'A' is in the sea about 300 metres south west of the lighthouse ......the nearest landmark is a group of offshore rocks known as 'The Merchants' .......a nice safe waypoint......or it might have been if that is where it really was....
...(this could have been done of course at any time before the fatal flight by any personnel..)
...if this is indeed how the co-ordinates were arrived at ...........the irony will be apparent to most contributors here..............
....as Day will have castigated the crew in part........ for making the same mistake which he himself has also made , but his was in a more public arena.......
...another chink in the armour.....
rgds Robin.....
..this is a common mis-conception as I recall from the time I used to teach map-reading......
..in fact this is only true at 2 degrees west.......that's RAF Lynham/Poole Harbour longitude for us in the south...........on the Mull of Kintyre OS map , the grid is pointing something like three degrees to the west of true north......(RAF Odiham btw shows on a local OS map as having the grid angled about 1/2 degree to the East of true..) ......
...so how is this relevant....?????............
...I have always felt that waypoint 'A' was wrong...........I cannot believe that anyone selects a waypoint 1/3 of the way up a mountain then flies towards it at something close to the same height.........even in good weather.............
..if one studies an OS 1:25 000 or 1:50,000 map of the Mull , starting from the bottom left hand corner , which is closest to the lighthouse , and then wrongly plotting the position of waypoint 'A' by using the latitude and longitude as marked on the borders of the map , but then 'pretend/assume' that the grid is pointing to true north and mark the position with lines parallel to the grid , we find that our waypoint 'A' is in the sea about 300 metres south west of the lighthouse ......the nearest landmark is a group of offshore rocks known as 'The Merchants' .......a nice safe waypoint......or it might have been if that is where it really was....
...(this could have been done of course at any time before the fatal flight by any personnel..)
...if this is indeed how the co-ordinates were arrived at ...........the irony will be apparent to most contributors here..............
....as Day will have castigated the crew in part........ for making the same mistake which he himself has also made , but his was in a more public arena.......
...another chink in the armour.....
rgds Robin.....
Last edited by Robin Clark; 9th Oct 2010 at 18:19. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin Clark
<<the request was for a list of co-ordinates you used........a diatribe about headings does not show anything...>>
I suggest you try and understand my post explaining your misconception, then get the coords for waypoint change, waypoint A, and the position of the last steering calculation from the same source (eg Trimble report) - remember, one system.
A bit too subtle for you, I think - or you are being pushed to keep up the confusion.
<<the request was for a list of co-ordinates you used........a diatribe about headings does not show anything...>>
I suggest you try and understand my post explaining your misconception, then get the coords for waypoint change, waypoint A, and the position of the last steering calculation from the same source (eg Trimble report) - remember, one system.
A bit too subtle for you, I think - or you are being pushed to keep up the confusion.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin Clark
I nearly forgot to comment on your last post.
You used to teach map reading?
- better do the waypoint A thing again, I suggest - we plotted it ok years ago.
Oh and by the way, I have actually stood on the "green triangle" with a GPS - that is what some locals call that handy perch that they knew Chinooks had landed on in the past - waypoint A just by it.
You have been put up to this rubbish haven't you?
I nearly forgot to comment on your last post.
You used to teach map reading?
- better do the waypoint A thing again, I suggest - we plotted it ok years ago.Oh and by the way, I have actually stood on the "green triangle" with a GPS - that is what some locals call that handy perch that they knew Chinooks had landed on in the past - waypoint A just by it.
You have been put up to this rubbish haven't you?
Walter:
Sorry, Walter, I missed the comment you made re the TANS switch as I was responding to three other members in my last post. The first two parts of your quote I have no problem with, but with respect I think the last part is your comment and not Mr Cable's. Please correct me if I am wrong. I think that the inference of Mr Cable's comment is that the switch was Off before the aircraft crashed. That is why I asked if that meant that the pilot displays were inhibited but that the Super TANS kept computing anyway, the only way that the data could be retrieved post accident if the pilots had selected Off. Could anyone familiar with the fit comment? Otherwise either Walter is right, ie someone moved the switch in the wreckage before fire engulfed the cockpit area, or the retrieved data is bogus. Anyone?
The SuperTANS was working to the end (from the recovered data, thanks to the back up battery) and yet the switch was found in the OFF position....
Mr Cable (AAIB) was adamant that it had to have been in the off position, the smoke deposits indicating that it must have been off ....
before the ground fire spread enough to effect that area of the wreckage.
Mr Cable (AAIB) was adamant that it had to have been in the off position, the smoke deposits indicating that it must have been off ....
before the ground fire spread enough to effect that area of the wreckage.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired Scots judge to look at Chinook crash evidence
Beeb:
I wasn't aware that the "a" word was even mentioned by the RAF let alone that it had concluded that the aircraft was airworthy! Might take some explaining if so, unless of course evidence since to the contrary is to be ignored...ah, it seems that is probably the case if the Beeb is to be believed. Review of THE evidence.....how best to conduct the review...all eerily familiar of previous reviews methinks. How is this to be independent if the MOD is "looking at how best to conduct it"? Is there to be no end to these cynical games?
But an official RAF inquiry into the incident concluded the aircraft was airworthy........
It is likely to be held in private and be a short, three to four month-long review of the evidence.
In a statement, the Ministry of Defence said that there will be a review of the evidence, and that it is looking at how best to conduct that review.
It is likely to be held in private and be a short, three to four month-long review of the evidence.
In a statement, the Ministry of Defence said that there will be a review of the evidence, and that it is looking at how best to conduct that review.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the very early days of the original thread, I posted a response which outlined my hypothesis. I can't find that post now, but in summary: shortly before making landfall, FADEC runaway on a single engine, rotor RPM increasing, pilot contains RRPM with collective, nose drops ( A CH47 peculiarity), aircraft accelerates and climb. Aircraft enters cloud layer in shallow climb, vibration issues immense with speed and power applied. All this leads to CFIT - the pilots would have had little to time to do anything else.
I think we all truly know it was FADEC that caused the problem, but have never been able to prove it.
HPT
I think we all truly know it was FADEC that caused the problem, but have never been able to prove it.
HPT
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but we don't all "truly" know it was the FADEC. Like most other conjectures (well informed or otherwise) on this accident.....there is (as yet) insufficient evidence (just as there was in an earlier Mk1 accident in the Falklands) to draw "true" conclusions.As for the FADEC....amongst other issues associated with it, one might ask about other examples of MK2 FADEC runaway in flight - and note I said flight....anyone got a contribution to make?
Cheers
FADEC conjecture
What is not conjecture is that MoD's own safety and airworthiness advisors stated the FADEC software was positively dangerous, refused to recommend release to service and subsequently grounded their trials aircraft on airworthiness grounds. MoD has confirmed this on numerous occasions.
Simple question to Spiers and Bagnall. Why did you reject this advice and withhold it when declaring the aircraft airworthy?
Simple question to Spiers and Bagnall. Why did you reject this advice and withhold it when declaring the aircraft airworthy?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Chugalug. Ref your "Review of THE evidence.....how best to conduct the review...all eerily familiar of previous reviews methinks. How is this to be independent if the MOD is "looking at how best to conduct it"? Is there to be no end to these cynical games?
No doubt you will now write to this distinguished Judge (using your real name of course) and tell him that his opinion is already tainted because he was nominated by MOD.
Or will you?
JP
No doubt you will now write to this distinguished Judge (using your real name of course) and tell him that his opinion is already tainted because he was nominated by MOD.
Or will you?
JP
Last edited by John Purdey; 29th Jul 2010 at 20:30. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
If the judge is allowed to review all the available evidence, as in that presented to the original enquiry and the stuff that was not presented to the original enquiry then surely Chug's name will not be needed
If the judge is allowed to review all the available evidence, as in that presented to the original enquiry and the stuff that was not presented to the original enquiry then surely Chug's name will not be needed
No doubt you will now write to this dictinguished Judge (using your real name of course) and tell him that his opinion is already tainted because he was nominated by MOD.
Or will you?
Or will you?
I will write to him offering the truth. Will you? He would be most interested in your first hand knowledge, your absolute certainty, of events. But I think Spiers and Bagnall will make far more interesting witnesses, especially as the RAF have turned against the former in their haste to protect the latter.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and there was no evidence whatsoever for engine runaway in this case.
Back to something whose use was consistent with what is known (the very existence of the fit in the type was predicted from the analysis of the known data) - after all these years, is no one on this forum able to get anyone who has actually used the CPLS to enlighten us all as to its use in the UK?
Or are you all going to continue ignoring the elephant in the room?
Back to something whose use was consistent with what is known (the very existence of the fit in the type was predicted from the analysis of the known data) - after all these years, is no one on this forum able to get anyone who has actually used the CPLS to enlighten us all as to its use in the UK?
Or are you all going to continue ignoring the elephant in the room?
JP my miserable name is of no significance to this tragic story, but the facts are. That is what Lord Philip needs to Review, the facts. Most of those facts will not be found in what the MOD endearingly calls the "existing evidence" because that "existing evidence" is woefully short of facts. If his remit is to restrict himself to reviewing the "existing evidence" it will be a pointless and fruitless exercise. Interestingly enough it seems that the "existing evidence" is indeed to be enhanced, but by the claim that the BoI found that the aircraft was fully airworthy, if the story fed to the BBC is to be believed! Where did it say that, JP? How did it determine that, JP? How does that gel with BD grounding their aircraft immediately prior to this accident and warning the RAF to do the same, (not considered by the BoI)? How does that gel with the numerous incidents of runaway ups, downs and other power excursions as well as jammed flying controls experienced inter alia by Sqn Ldr Burke, RAF Odiham TP, (not considered by the BoI)? There you are JP, another four questions to be ignored with the contempt they are due!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real Names
JP,
I am writing here under my real name, and I will indeed, along with others, be writing to Lord Philip under my real name. Since I think that I was one of your "flock" at one stage I am surprised by some of your postings, which seem to consistently put aside the new facts that have emerged since the original BoI - some since the House of Lords Committee. I do not know whether it was just sloppy reporting or whether the BBC got an "approved", but untrue, "message" from MOD that the Inquiry found the aircraft to be airworthy. But you will know that neither the main Inquiry nor the Reviewing Officers use the word "airworthy" or "airworthiness" at all, and no evidence on airworthiness exists in the Board's work. Indeed, whilst the then AVM Day was "satisfied" that the aircraft was "serviceable to undertake the flight" as we have since seen even this "finding", which was not fully supported by the findings from the Board itself, is now suspect. These are provable facts - not speculation or hypotheses, and if you wish to reject them I would welcome seeing the opposing "facts" on which you base your position.
With his distinguished career, I am sure that Lord Philip will be the independent figure that we would wish to see. I am equally sure that this Inquiry should not be held in private, with MOD apparently controlling the TORs and being able to "situate their appreciation", with nobody questioning their evidence from outside, should they choose to do so. If I am right about your background you would know better than me whether MOD might be tempted to do this! I could not, as they say, possibly comment.
JB
I am writing here under my real name, and I will indeed, along with others, be writing to Lord Philip under my real name. Since I think that I was one of your "flock" at one stage I am surprised by some of your postings, which seem to consistently put aside the new facts that have emerged since the original BoI - some since the House of Lords Committee. I do not know whether it was just sloppy reporting or whether the BBC got an "approved", but untrue, "message" from MOD that the Inquiry found the aircraft to be airworthy. But you will know that neither the main Inquiry nor the Reviewing Officers use the word "airworthy" or "airworthiness" at all, and no evidence on airworthiness exists in the Board's work. Indeed, whilst the then AVM Day was "satisfied" that the aircraft was "serviceable to undertake the flight" as we have since seen even this "finding", which was not fully supported by the findings from the Board itself, is now suspect. These are provable facts - not speculation or hypotheses, and if you wish to reject them I would welcome seeing the opposing "facts" on which you base your position.
With his distinguished career, I am sure that Lord Philip will be the independent figure that we would wish to see. I am equally sure that this Inquiry should not be held in private, with MOD apparently controlling the TORs and being able to "situate their appreciation", with nobody questioning their evidence from outside, should they choose to do so. If I am right about your background you would know better than me whether MOD might be tempted to do this! I could not, as they say, possibly comment.
JB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
John Blakeley. You say "the new facts that have emerged since the original BoI - some since the House of Lords Committee." But the last Government (and I seem to recall, several before that one) made it quite clear that, presented with new evidence, they would reopen the Inquiry. What happened?
Chug. Do try to keep calm. JP
Chug. Do try to keep calm. JP
Last edited by John Purdey; 30th Jul 2010 at 09:26. Reason: Omission
What happened?
This judicial review will be worthless unless the full facts are presented, no matter how much that might embarrass what is by now a thoroughly discredited cabal desperate to pin the blame for their own failures on others.
Is it really possible that the 'Scottish Officer' might actually be called to account, tucumseh?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
BEAg. I was trying to be brief; what happened to the new evidence under these past administrations, and while I am on, just what was the new evidence that those administrations apparently chose to ignore? Clear enough? Regards JP
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chug
There you are JP, another four questions to be ignored with the contempt they are due!