Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 25th Aug 2010, 19:15
  #6701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,771
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
That's a pity JP. I thought we could pass the time until the Judge reports in a pleasant philosophical discussion on the concept of doubt.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 19:34
  #6702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Well we could always simply stick to facts rather than opinions, how about that JP? When you say:
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.
perhaps you might try to cast your mind back to the years leading up to this tragedy. Still concerning airworthiness, is it possible that your duties then were
involved with that issue
Upon reflection would that be true? Or can you say without hesitation that you never had any involvement in an area that you claim to have no knowledge of?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 19:43
  #6703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chinook

Pulse1. Well, we could go on for ever, but why bother when all the arguments - on all sides- have already been so eloquently deployed?
Regards John Purdey.o
John Purdey is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 20:18
  #6704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
JP

You stated today

the harsh fact is that the aircraft was flying and that this crew were in control of it.
Thank you for once for admitting that it is your opinion only. Facts are those for which proof exists. For example, the lamentable failure of senior officers to carry out their duty of ensuring airworthiness, or of observing the rules governing their duties.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2010, 21:22
  #6705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SFFP

Thank you for your correction at #6772. I agree entirely.
Vertico is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 08:37
  #6706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I must congratulate all recent contributors to the thread for conducting their articulate discussions with much dignity and politeness. There are, of course, widely differing opinions but there now seems to be respect for eachothers' standpoint. This is something from which our government in Westminster could learn.

Unfortunately, while there is so little hard evidence (except for that relating to non-compliance with airworthiness regulations), we will never really know neither what the crew saw, thought and said, nor what actually happened to the ac systems on that flight. However, it is a great relief to see 'an agreement to disagree' between warring factions after so many years of intransigence and sometimes puerile name-calling or willy-waving.

Sadly, I sincerely doubt that JP and his friends will ever be swayed to agree with those who offer alternative explanations but, at least, they now seem to accept the possibility of such alternatives; which is advancement indeed. Bravo all!

If only Sirs William and John had had the courage to be so open-minded at the time... but perhaps they were boxed into a corner by their own superiors? It would be nice to know.


flipster
flipster is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 08:57
  #6707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flipster

Well said!

Sadly, I sincerely doubt that JP and his friends will ever be swayed to agree with those who offer alternative explanations but, at least, they now seem to accept the possibility of such alternatives; which is advancement indeed. Bravo all!
And the opposite - politely put - is

Sadly, I sincerely doubt that Flipster and his friends will ever be swayed to agree with those who offer alternative explanations but, at least, they now seem to accept the possibility of such alternatives; which is advancement indeed. Bravo all!
bast0n is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 09:18
  #6708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bast0n
Flipster

Well said!



And the opposite - politely put - is

Sadly, I sincerely doubt that Flipster and his friends will ever be swayed to agree with those who offer alternative explanations but, at least, they now seem to accept the possibility of such alternatives; which is advancement indeed. Bravo all!
Baston,

What a silly ill thought out post that is

Take a stroll back through the whole of the thread and you will find folk who have clearly stated in here that what JP and the AM's have suggested is quite probably what did happen on that day.

To try and state that what they suggest definitely did not happen would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

The differences we have is that most of us also accept that there are other credible possibilities which may have caused the crash which, with the lack of eye witness, ADR and CVR evidence means the verdict reached is unjust.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 11:07
  #6709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seldom

How sweet of you!

As Flipster and I stated, and meant it - Bravo all!!

You missed that bit I expect - but never mnd.................................
bast0n is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 11:33
  #6710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Bast0n

I realise it is tedious , but just to be clear, can you confirm you have joined the almost unanimous consensus that although we all may have an opinion on the cause of the crash, nobody knows beyond all reasonable doubt the facts.

F2
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 11:53
  #6711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fitter2,

There is a world of difference between accepting we are all entitled to an opinion and accepting those opinions have any relevance with regards to the verdict in this case.

It's an extremely subtle nuance and does seem to have missed by one or two folk.

Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 26th Aug 2010 at 13:30.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 13:18
  #6712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fitter

Of course, as I have always said.

The is a world of difference between accepting we are all entitled to an opinion and accepting those opinions have any relevance with regards to the verdict in this case.
Seldom

The point made by Flipster was that we had every right to our differing views and if we do not give equal weight to the views of others then that is fine by me. I think he and I agreed that by and large it had been done rather well - hence the Bravo All. I did not think that this was a competition but rather an exchange of civilised and rational discussion to perhaps understand what happened.

This sort of silly point scoring does not help that in any way.

Good afternoon.
bast0n is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 13:26
  #6713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,140
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Thank you Bast0n. I shall give your opinion the weight it deserves.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 16:11
  #6714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst I am firmly on the side of the debate that advocates quashing the finding of 'Gross Negligence' for these two pilots, there has been some admirable argument from both sides on this thread, which has been mostly respectful and well-mannered. However, it is unlikely that JP and other supporters of the Air Marshals' crash-cause hypothesis will ever post that they have been won over, and it is even more unlikely that I will ever be persuaded that there is no doubt whatsoever that the two pilots were negligent.

The difference is that I would have nothing to lose by changing my opinion (other than a possible loss of face) but it seems that others, such as JP, may see the Gross Negligence tag transferred to those that they have been doing their utmost to protect -fellow senior officers. How ghastly!

It looks as if someone (ACAS?) was faced with one of those difficult high-powered decisions that Air-ranking officers are required to make and for which they are financially well-remunerated. Facing pressure from those requiring the urgent introduction of the Chinook Mk2 into service, and possibly egged-on by others above him, he probably took a deep breath and signed a RTS whilst thinking "it'll probably be alright". Well, it wasn't!

So what aboout Day and Wratten? Where do they and their scandalous decision fit in? In his now infamous letter to Station Commanders, Wratten stated that
aircrew and their supervisors should be in no doubt that honest professional endeavour will never bring censure - and will indeed attract my strong support - even when in trying circumstances mistakes are made, as they surely will be. On the other hand, I wish you to convey, once again, the clear message through the command chain that unmitigated carelessness or indiscipline will not be tolerated and will be met with formal proceedings. This will of course in no way undermine the certainty for those affected of a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process.
Perhaps, aware of his boss' unequivocal (hard-assed?) view, Day thought he might curry favour by suggesting that the Mull accident was a clear case of indiscipline? Wratten may have seen this as an ideal way pour encourager les autres and the Gross Negligence tag was born.

Alternatively, realising how open to criticism was the introduction of the Mk2, Wratten (and therefore Day) were persuaded by other even more senior officers that blaming two dead junior officers who would have no recourse to "a fair and unbiased hearing with all the safeguards entailed in the legal process" would be an expedient method for diverting attention away from the embarrassing fact that the aircraft wasn't actually airworthy? Sadly, there is no ADR or CVR to back up this conjecture, oh but neither was there to back up theirs either!
meadowbank is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 16:41
  #6715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chinook

Meadowbank. I think you might do well to take the hint from so many other contributers, including me, that this whole story should now be allowed to rest until we see the findings of the new Inquiry; do you not agree? With renewed good wishes, John Purdey
John Purdey is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2010, 20:57
  #6716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Meadowbank,

I have taken one line from your post which for me sums up the whole of this conundrum

"and it is even more unlikely that I will ever be persuaded that there is no doubt whatsoever that the two pilots were negligent.

From day 1 I have never understood how anyone could possibly arrive at a conclusion in this case that left them with no doubt whatsoever, there is simply not enough conclusive evidence to support that view.

I always thought there had to be another reason as to why the MOD and others were sticking so doggedly to their story and if what I have read on here over the last couple of months is true then it's all starting to become clear.

The only fear now is that the system will continue the cover up with its attempts to restrict the evidence shown to the enquiry. If they were that confident they got it right in the first place they would be telling all and sundry to "bring it on", sadly the fact that they are not speaks volumes.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 03:18
  #6717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SFFP
<<The only fear now is that the system will continue the cover up with its attempts to restrict the evidence shown to the enquiry. >>
It's not just “the system” effectively limiting the scope of any inquiry, is it? All this repeated waffle is hiding that many basic questions as to the navigation equipment and use have not been answered.


Chinook240
<<But Walter they don't, as usual you don't have a complete grasp of how the Chinook HC Mk II and its systems work. >>
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot – have I not been pushing for explanations and discussion on such stuff so that we all can have an understanding on what they had available and how they may have been using it both in the long leg towards the Mull and locally close by it? Hopefully you have volunteered yourself with kicking off such a discussion with your version – regarding a crash 16 years ago, you would hardly be giving away secrets and practices within the cockpit should not give any enemy an advantage (unless the enemy is the general public wanting the whole truth) – don't worry about being a bit rusty and getting things wrong as I am sure you would be corrected by others in a proactive way and we should end up with that common understanding that should have been a foundation to those involved in the inquiries over the years.
For example, I imagine there must be many out there who have not seen a “steer meter” in action (me too!) and would not understand its use independent of an HoSI – perhaps envisioning the big Chinook fish-tailing along as the HP tries to keep on track (would have some latency wouldn't it?) like chasing a VSI but laterally.


Anyone find out about the switch on the SuperTANS? - no? Simple enough, one would have thought - if STANS is turned off, do Doppler and GPS subsystems still carry on calculating?
I think not but others have asked this question and it should be able to be answered by now.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 05:57
  #6718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Anyone find out about the switch on the SuperTANS? - no? Simple enough, one would have thought - if STANS is turned off, do Doppler and GPS subsystems still carry on calculating?

Walter

Not quite the correct question but close. If TANS is switched off (as stated by the AAIB), does it still accept, process and record in memory the external inputs (Doppler, GPS, ADS)?


But you make a very good point. After 16 years there is still much debate about how systems work, are presented to the crew and used by them. For example, I’ve read dozens of interpretations of what the Safety Altitude was. I can’t say Wratten and Day are wrong as I’m no expert, but there are many experts here who have different opinions; which means doubt. But I’ve sat and listened to the RAF’s senior test pilot of the day and the most experienced man on HC Mk2 at the time, and he says W&D are wrong on this, and many other aspects. I gravitate toward such an expert opinion, but accept others don’t.

Throughout this case we come across such conflicts. Too often we see evidence of MoD searching for different opinion until finding one that suits the verdict of gross negligence against the pilots. In my little area of knowledge the classic example is the FADEC software.

MoD’s own experts were tasked, as they had been hundreds of times before on other projects, to validate and verify the software. As it was Safety Critical, a specific set of regulations applied (which I have a copy of). Despite A&AEE and Boeing stating it was Safety Critical, MoD’s case is based on their retrospective claim it was not (something they didn’t claim when A&AEE were conducting their V&V) – allowing them to quote the lesser regulations and claim A&AEE went beyond their remit. Then they went round the bazaars on the V&V until someone vaguely agreed with their flawed line; and presented this as proof of compliance.

But all that alternative view did was create a conflict. Such conflicts create doubt and must be resolved. MoD made no effort to do so. In the words of one distinguished contributor here, they “situated the appreciation”.

So, it seems a truce of sorts has been called here. I hope the time is spent fruitfully, preparing your submissions to Lord Philip. Remember chaps, he is a legal type and only interested in verifiable facts. So, he has my evidence on airworthiness (kindly provided by MoD) demonstrating the aircraft was immature and that, in signing the CAR and RTS, senior staffs withheld vital safety related information from aircrew. The absolute certainty as to what happened in the last couple of minutes of the flight, and the accompanying and similarly irrefutable evidence, will presumably form others’ submission. An interesting possibility arises. A verdict of “Verdict remains against pilots, to which I add the following names of senior officers........” After all, Haddon-Cave named two officers and they are being investigated as we speak, so a precedent has been set.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 07:27
  #6719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Walters final question is a very good one. I doubt that there is anyone on this thread with the technical expertise to answer it. I think it would take a RACAL expert to tell us.

I never knew that once the TANS display was switched off, it carried on computing.
But if you think about it it is logical that it did. For instance TANS off, you can still look at your raw doppler drift and groundspeed. You almost certainly have not powered down your GPS receiver. The information has to go somewhere. Why not into the TANS computer?
As an example if your VOR display unit fails,if you know where to look on the avionics rack you can still obtain accurate readings.

So the fact that RACAL could extract all the data at final powerdown comes as no surprise. What beats my poor level of knowledge is how the hell they could work backwards.

For instance on a low level route, I would frequently go Bearing / Distance, Along / Across and back, it took about one second, depending on dexterity with buttons.
After every turning point, whilst doing my Heading, Airspeed, Timing checks I left all navigation modes to scan all important data. (heading, TAS, L/L, doppler inputs etc,etc). This seemingly complex process took about five seconds. Then I would return to Navigation mode of choice, in my case nearly always A/A.

So what I can easily understand is how RACAL could extract data at powerdown. What remains a mystery to me is how they could possibly interpret where the rotary switches were, and what buttons were pressed just leading up to the accident?

It is important. Is there an expert out there who knows sufficient to answer?
dalek is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 08:27
  #6720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dalek,

What were the teachings on the OCU/Mk2 conversion course or were you left to make your own decisions as to the settings and calcs and procedures at WPs?

Where there any differences in Low-Level nav techniques/SOPs between the Mk1 and Mk2 - in addition to now knowing the GPS figures and warnings were now meaningless - as the fudged CAR/RTS tells us?

Flipster

Baston - I have never said that we know what caused the crash that day and I have always accepted there are a large number of possibilities.
But, certainly, it is most refreshing to hear yourself and the likes of JP finally concurring with that open-minded appraisal. Well done.
flipster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.