Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
John Purdey
Your ill-mannered criticism is unworthy of a retired senior officer, but not unexpected. You may think me verbose, but I do not see you entering into a reasoned debate about the content of my posts. Resorting to such snide insults belittles the man and reveals so much. Perhaps the truth hurts?
If you want answers, simply ask for a copy of the Release to Service and look at the name on the front sheet.
Your ill-mannered criticism is unworthy of a retired senior officer, but not unexpected. You may think me verbose, but I do not see you entering into a reasoned debate about the content of my posts. Resorting to such snide insults belittles the man and reveals so much. Perhaps the truth hurts?
If you want answers, simply ask for a copy of the Release to Service and look at the name on the front sheet.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tuc,
JP has yet to answer a single direct question ever posed to him on here which, based on what you continue to reveal comes as no great surprise.
As I previously posted there will be current and ex * folk who are dreading the potential outcome of the up coming enquiry, and so the bloody scoundrels should be
JP has yet to answer a single direct question ever posed to him on here which, based on what you continue to reveal comes as no great surprise.
As I previously posted there will be current and ex * folk who are dreading the potential outcome of the up coming enquiry, and so the bloody scoundrels should be
Chinook 240, you asked (rhetorically, I presume) if you still get UFCMs. When on shift on the Cornwall Air Ambulance in 2008 we briefly shared the SK OCU hangar with a Chinook which, during the course of an exercise routinely held in the area, suffered a UFCM in pitch and was under quarantine awaiting investigation. You probably knew that already, though.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Given your distinguished RAF career, and in particular the post you held between Feb 85 and Nov 87, when many of the Treasury led decisions that so adversely affected military airworthiness over the next two decades were already being made, I think you fully comprehend the points that Tuc and others are making, and I am disappointed that the recent reponses appear to be snide comments. Is this to be the new line from the Air Marshals' Club?
JB
Given your distinguished RAF career, and in particular the post you held between Feb 85 and Nov 87, when many of the Treasury led decisions that so adversely affected military airworthiness over the next two decades were already being made, I think you fully comprehend the points that Tuc and others are making, and I am disappointed that the recent reponses appear to be snide comments. Is this to be the new line from the Air Marshals' Club?
JB
T & B,
Thanks, although I didn't know about the particular one to which you refer, my question was rhetorical. You know the Chinook as well as I do and my point, which Tuc answered as fully as he could, is that we don't know at which point certain faults become acceptable and make an ac airworthy, and others are not.
Is the FADEC perfect? Is the AFCS, the most common cause of UFCMs, perfect? How many are incidents are acceptable in a mechanical system that undergoes severe vibration and stress?
And it is a reasonable question to ask for the sake of those who have to depend upon it for their and their pax safety, when did the Mk II become airworthy - or not?
Thanks, although I didn't know about the particular one to which you refer, my question was rhetorical. You know the Chinook as well as I do and my point, which Tuc answered as fully as he could, is that we don't know at which point certain faults become acceptable and make an ac airworthy, and others are not.
Is the FADEC perfect? Is the AFCS, the most common cause of UFCMs, perfect? How many are incidents are acceptable in a mechanical system that undergoes severe vibration and stress?
And it is a reasonable question to ask for the sake of those who have to depend upon it for their and their pax safety, when did the Mk II become airworthy - or not?
Chinook240
Excellent questions and, indeed, they are reasonable. I'm sorry I am no longer in a position to answer them but please continue asking them. I'll answer as best I can.
All I can say is that the new MAA seems to be heading in the right direction, although of course it will take many years for them to rebuild the competence and corporate knowledge the likes of AMSO ditched to generate funds to replace those he had knowingly wasted. It concerns me though that they seem very top heavy, with no-one at the grades/ranks where the real hands-on experience lies. Also, one wonders what those at the top really know, given anyone under 50 in DE&S is, almost by definition, irredeemably tainted by the policies and practices they have been exposed to this last 25 years. There are exceptions, but the exception should be those who know little.
It also concerns me what will happen when the forthcoming cuts are announced. At a time when hundreds of millions, possibly much more, is required to achieve the above, the pressure will be on. When the same "pressure" was on AMSO in the late 80s/early 90s the deliberate decision was to compromise safety, and it was left to a few lowly civilians with airworthiness delegation to fight the good fight. The only difference then was the funding crisis was of his own making, not the work of some bankers.
Excellent questions and, indeed, they are reasonable. I'm sorry I am no longer in a position to answer them but please continue asking them. I'll answer as best I can.
All I can say is that the new MAA seems to be heading in the right direction, although of course it will take many years for them to rebuild the competence and corporate knowledge the likes of AMSO ditched to generate funds to replace those he had knowingly wasted. It concerns me though that they seem very top heavy, with no-one at the grades/ranks where the real hands-on experience lies. Also, one wonders what those at the top really know, given anyone under 50 in DE&S is, almost by definition, irredeemably tainted by the policies and practices they have been exposed to this last 25 years. There are exceptions, but the exception should be those who know little.
It also concerns me what will happen when the forthcoming cuts are announced. At a time when hundreds of millions, possibly much more, is required to achieve the above, the pressure will be on. When the same "pressure" was on AMSO in the late 80s/early 90s the deliberate decision was to compromise safety, and it was left to a few lowly civilians with airworthiness delegation to fight the good fight. The only difference then was the funding crisis was of his own making, not the work of some bankers.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP,
Given your distinguished RAF career, and in particular the post you held between Feb 85 and Nov 87, when many of the Treasury led decisions that so adversely affected military airworthiness over the next two decades were already being made, I think you fully comprehend the points that Tuc and others are making, and I am disappointed that the recent reponses appear to be snide comments. Is this to be the new line from the Air Marshals' Club?
JB
Given your distinguished RAF career, and in particular the post you held between Feb 85 and Nov 87, when many of the Treasury led decisions that so adversely affected military airworthiness over the next two decades were already being made, I think you fully comprehend the points that Tuc and others are making, and I am disappointed that the recent reponses appear to be snide comments. Is this to be the new line from the Air Marshals' Club?
JB
JB
I suspect the 'Air Marshals' Club' are mostly too busy trying to find out if the Treasury will bankroll their legal fees that they haven't the time to construct a new policy.
And I suspect the Treasury are a bit strapped for cash right now. Even more than for the last 25 years when they were penny pinching on airworthiness...............
I suspect the 'Air Marshals' Club' are mostly too busy trying to find out if the Treasury will bankroll their legal fees that they haven't the time to construct a new policy.
And I suspect the Treasury are a bit strapped for cash right now. Even more than for the last 25 years when they were penny pinching on airworthiness...............
And it is a reasonable question to ask for the sake of those who have to depend upon it for their and their pax safety, when did the Mk II become airworthy - or not?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
John Blakeley. Ad hominem points add nothing to this discussion, but since you take that line then I am somewhat surprised to see the conspiritorial company you keep. Snide....moi?? With all good wishes,, John Purdey
Last edited by John Purdey; 25th Aug 2010 at 13:44. Reason: complition
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argumentum Ad Hominem
JP,
The "argumentum ad hominem" is not always fallacious - in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motive, etc are legitimate and relevant to the issue. In my view your distinguished RAF career and posts held appear to be very relevant to your motives for making your comments, and indeed your position on most of the questions that have been posed back to you. I am afraid that I am not part of any conspiracy - my formal critique of what in, my view, were the major inadequacies of the engineering and airworthiness aspects of the original BoI, which I originally made as a consultant (and on a pro bono basis) for the Tapper family, has been available on the Mull website for more than 10 years - I have seen nothing in the way of arguments since to make me change my mind, and I plan to send an updated version to Lord Philip, under my own name.
Indeed, with the availability of new (in the sense that it was neither sought by, nor made available to, the BoI) evidence from people like Boscombe Down, and events such as the HofL Inquiry, my belief in the injustice of this verdict is now greater than ever. The more recently exposed general issues of military airworthiness that have come to light with the publication of the Haddon-Cave Report further reinforce the need fully to investigate what has been going wrong with MOD's processes and procedures - an issue which, clearly, goes back to a time well before the period H-C looked at. Hence I would see any conspiracy (your word not mine) as being with those who are trying to cover up these mistakes, and not with those who wish to expose them and thus regain the accountability that should never have been lost.
Since we both know to whom we are talking your good wishes are sincerely reciprocated!
JB
The "argumentum ad hominem" is not always fallacious - in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motive, etc are legitimate and relevant to the issue. In my view your distinguished RAF career and posts held appear to be very relevant to your motives for making your comments, and indeed your position on most of the questions that have been posed back to you. I am afraid that I am not part of any conspiracy - my formal critique of what in, my view, were the major inadequacies of the engineering and airworthiness aspects of the original BoI, which I originally made as a consultant (and on a pro bono basis) for the Tapper family, has been available on the Mull website for more than 10 years - I have seen nothing in the way of arguments since to make me change my mind, and I plan to send an updated version to Lord Philip, under my own name.
Indeed, with the availability of new (in the sense that it was neither sought by, nor made available to, the BoI) evidence from people like Boscombe Down, and events such as the HofL Inquiry, my belief in the injustice of this verdict is now greater than ever. The more recently exposed general issues of military airworthiness that have come to light with the publication of the Haddon-Cave Report further reinforce the need fully to investigate what has been going wrong with MOD's processes and procedures - an issue which, clearly, goes back to a time well before the period H-C looked at. Hence I would see any conspiracy (your word not mine) as being with those who are trying to cover up these mistakes, and not with those who wish to expose them and thus regain the accountability that should never have been lost.
Since we both know to whom we are talking your good wishes are sincerely reciprocated!
JB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
John Blakeley. There seem to be two quite different aspects to this sad case. One of them concerns airworthiness, and since I do not have access to the relevant documents, nor to the regulations in force at the time, nor was I in anyway involved with that issue at around that time, I am not qualified to comment. It may well be, for all I know, that the aircraft should not have been airborne at all at that time; but the harsh fact is that the aircraft was flying and that this crew were in control of it.
But the other aspect concerns the airmanship involved, and my extensive flying experience tells me that the crew should not have been where they were in those weather conditions. That was the negligence.
What we will never know, and it does not matter because they had by now put themselves -and their innocent passengers- at grave risk, is why the crew pressed on, in that weather, instead of turning left up the coast of the Mull. It is my unsupported, but logical, belief that they misread the ground features, mistaking the fog staion for the lighthouse compound, and thus placing themselves about 500 yards to the east of where they thought they were, and therefore facing a hillside around 3-500 feet higher than they expected. It was now too late to rectify their error. I cannot think of any other explanation, and nor has any better one been suggested, and nor does it matter since the crew had by now breached one of the most basic rules of airmanship, ie do not fly IMC below your safety height.
I trust that we do not have to go through this again, but no doubt the new Inquiry will look at this possible explanation of an otherwise inexplicable instance of aircrew negligence.
With renewed good wishes, John Purdey
But the other aspect concerns the airmanship involved, and my extensive flying experience tells me that the crew should not have been where they were in those weather conditions. That was the negligence.
What we will never know, and it does not matter because they had by now put themselves -and their innocent passengers- at grave risk, is why the crew pressed on, in that weather, instead of turning left up the coast of the Mull. It is my unsupported, but logical, belief that they misread the ground features, mistaking the fog staion for the lighthouse compound, and thus placing themselves about 500 yards to the east of where they thought they were, and therefore facing a hillside around 3-500 feet higher than they expected. It was now too late to rectify their error. I cannot think of any other explanation, and nor has any better one been suggested, and nor does it matter since the crew had by now breached one of the most basic rules of airmanship, ie do not fly IMC below your safety height.
I trust that we do not have to go through this again, but no doubt the new Inquiry will look at this possible explanation of an otherwise inexplicable instance of aircrew negligence.
With renewed good wishes, John Purdey
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
nor does it matter since the crew had by now breached one of the most basic rules of airmanship, ie do not fly IMC below your safety height.
If a FADEC runaway or some other type of UFCM had happened shortly (a few seconds??) before they went IMC, wouldn't that change the position?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, John Purdey, the stark fact is that no-one knows, or will ever know, if the crew were actually IMC and if they were were they flying IMC of their own volition. There is a well-documented history of UFCMs in the Chinook, which appears to be continuing to this day, from other comments on this thread.
If a FADEC runaway or some other type of UFCM had happened shortly (a few seconds??) before they went IMC, wouldn't that change the position?
If a FADEC runaway or some other type of UFCM had happened shortly (a few seconds??) before they went IMC, wouldn't that change the position?
JP
We do not know there was any negligence by the aircrew, since there is no evidence.
We have ample evidence of appalling negligence by those in charge of airworthiness of service aircraft in general and HC2 in particular.
In your words
We do not know there was any negligence by the aircrew, since there is no evidence.
We have ample evidence of appalling negligence by those in charge of airworthiness of service aircraft in general and HC2 in particular.
In your words
I trust that we do not have to go through this again, but no doubt the new Inquiry will look at this possible explanation
Last edited by Fitter2; 25th Aug 2010 at 18:23.
JP,
You have, once again, clearly given us your own explanation of what happened that fateful afternoon. I would be surprised if anyone would say that yours is not one of the logical explanations of the accident
However, what I and probably many others find inexplicable is how you can make that judgement “with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”, as required by the rules at the time.
You say:
They....pressed on “in that weather” but you have never been able to say exactly what that weather was with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. All one can say with that degree of certainty is that at least part of the Mull was obscured by cloud.
You say:
“......that this crew were in control of it.” But no-one can know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they were in control after waypoint change. Revelations about the airworthiness of the Mk2 must significantly increase the level of doubt about this as well as giving a motive for those who have ignored the rules about doubt.
You say:
“It is my unsupported, but logical, belief..” – this is not a statement which qualifies for absolutely no doubt whatsoever. You cannot be logical, in a scientific or legal sense i.e the ONLY logical belief, unless you can support it. Your belief is only logical in the sense that it is not illogical i.e. it could have happened exactly as you describe.
Any logical human being must accept that there is a degree of doubt. This doubt could be weighed against the doubt that a highly trained SH crew would, quite unnecessarily, delay their turn to the left having set the new waypoint. That doubt could be reduced when it is likely that they were being monitored by a member of the crew who was known for his outspoken comments about such poor airmanship. This does not mean that they didn’t actually do it, but what I am trying to do here is explore this concept of doubt which seems to be beyond your understanding.
Rather than repeat the old arguments it might be helpful if you could explain how you see "ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER" in relation to your stated opinion.
You have, once again, clearly given us your own explanation of what happened that fateful afternoon. I would be surprised if anyone would say that yours is not one of the logical explanations of the accident
However, what I and probably many others find inexplicable is how you can make that judgement “with absolutely no doubt whatsoever”, as required by the rules at the time.
You say:
They....pressed on “in that weather” but you have never been able to say exactly what that weather was with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. All one can say with that degree of certainty is that at least part of the Mull was obscured by cloud.
You say:
“......that this crew were in control of it.” But no-one can know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they were in control after waypoint change. Revelations about the airworthiness of the Mk2 must significantly increase the level of doubt about this as well as giving a motive for those who have ignored the rules about doubt.
You say:
“It is my unsupported, but logical, belief..” – this is not a statement which qualifies for absolutely no doubt whatsoever. You cannot be logical, in a scientific or legal sense i.e the ONLY logical belief, unless you can support it. Your belief is only logical in the sense that it is not illogical i.e. it could have happened exactly as you describe.
Any logical human being must accept that there is a degree of doubt. This doubt could be weighed against the doubt that a highly trained SH crew would, quite unnecessarily, delay their turn to the left having set the new waypoint. That doubt could be reduced when it is likely that they were being monitored by a member of the crew who was known for his outspoken comments about such poor airmanship. This does not mean that they didn’t actually do it, but what I am trying to do here is explore this concept of doubt which seems to be beyond your understanding.
Rather than repeat the old arguments it might be helpful if you could explain how you see "ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER" in relation to your stated opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RACAL
John Purdey,
If you accept the RACAL report in full, which you must, or the evidence given by Wratten and Day is invalid, then the crew cannot have been in error by 500m. They knew their location precisely, ten metres or so.
What you suggest is not negligence, it is deliberate suicide.
If you accept the RACAL report in full, which you must, or the evidence given by Wratten and Day is invalid, then the crew cannot have been in error by 500m. They knew their location precisely, ten metres or so.
What you suggest is not negligence, it is deliberate suicide.
Last edited by dalek; 26th Aug 2010 at 06:36.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook
Verico, SFFP, Fitter2, Pulse1, Dalek. Many thanks for the comments. We all have our own opinions, which of course I respect. Meanwhile, let us wait and see what the Learned Judge makes of all this, rather than repeat the all-too-familiar arguments. With all good wishes John Purdey.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verico, SFFP, Fitter2, Pulse1, Dalek. Many thanks for the comments. We all have our own opinions, which of course I respect. Meanwhile, let us wait and see what the Learned Judge makes of all this, rather than repeat the all-too-familiar arguments. With all good wishes John Purdey.
Well finally we come to an agreement
