Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Analysis
Walter,
I have at last read the Mitchell Boeing Analysis.
As simple aircrew the full technical merits of this report are beyond me.
I will put on my SFSO hat and do as I always do in situations like this, consult someone who really does understand.
Even as simple aircrew, I can see a couple of problems with this report.
1. This analysis was made in 2002. I believe it was made at the request of the HOL enquiry. The analysis was made as a result of the demolition of the initial simulation done at that inquiry. The demolition was done mainly by the evidence of Cable and Burke.
This analysis should certainly be brought up at the next inquiry and fully scrutinised by the same men, or at least someone with similar backgrounds and experience. Then we will see just how good it really is.
2. Another problem is the source material.
"These include the RACAL (Thales) report"
Since RACAL have already conceeded that this report shows what "may" have happened, not what "did". (Para 1.1.5 of the Report), can this analysis have any relevance if the RACAL data is ignored.
I think not.
I have at last read the Mitchell Boeing Analysis.
As simple aircrew the full technical merits of this report are beyond me.
I will put on my SFSO hat and do as I always do in situations like this, consult someone who really does understand.
Even as simple aircrew, I can see a couple of problems with this report.
1. This analysis was made in 2002. I believe it was made at the request of the HOL enquiry. The analysis was made as a result of the demolition of the initial simulation done at that inquiry. The demolition was done mainly by the evidence of Cable and Burke.
This analysis should certainly be brought up at the next inquiry and fully scrutinised by the same men, or at least someone with similar backgrounds and experience. Then we will see just how good it really is.
2. Another problem is the source material.
"These include the RACAL (Thales) report"
Since RACAL have already conceeded that this report shows what "may" have happened, not what "did". (Para 1.1.5 of the Report), can this analysis have any relevance if the RACAL data is ignored.
I think not.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek hi
As you have quite correctly identified, both Boeing analyses are 'models' of what MAY have happened
For example, I seem to recall the original report was simply based on a generic single rotor helicopter. Not even a chinook! (Garbage in - garbage out!)
Only a fool, or someone with a vested interest would confuse them with a 'record' of what DID happen!
As you have quite correctly identified, both Boeing analyses are 'models' of what MAY have happened
For example, I seem to recall the original report was simply based on a generic single rotor helicopter. Not even a chinook! (Garbage in - garbage out!)
Only a fool, or someone with a vested interest would confuse them with a 'record' of what DID happen!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook crash Mull of Kintyre
[i ROBIN:
in the Excel spreadsheet below the fatal route is split into four legs...
...and allows one to adjust the speed for each leg....the point being to end up with 59.6 minutes in the box D13 ( this equates to 59 minutes 36 seconds , the calculations are done with decimal parts of minutes)...
..it takes the lift-off time from the HOL report......the zone boundary call time is for the first call......the boundary itself 10NM from the centre of the field ......uses the most probable route to Carnlough passing Ballymena ..........shows that a higher speed over the water can make up for the slower sections......the "delta" lines are the times for each leg.....
........when you change the distance (over the ground) for the first leg it will show the speed required to reach the point reported....
....for the next two legs changing the speed ripples down and corrects the arrival time.....
.the last leg is set to 151 kt GS for two minutes as per RACAL ........ ]
Does the above mean that the aircraft flew into a cloud with rocks in it with the inevitable result?
in the Excel spreadsheet below the fatal route is split into four legs...
...and allows one to adjust the speed for each leg....the point being to end up with 59.6 minutes in the box D13 ( this equates to 59 minutes 36 seconds , the calculations are done with decimal parts of minutes)...
..it takes the lift-off time from the HOL report......the zone boundary call time is for the first call......the boundary itself 10NM from the centre of the field ......uses the most probable route to Carnlough passing Ballymena ..........shows that a higher speed over the water can make up for the slower sections......the "delta" lines are the times for each leg.....
........when you change the distance (over the ground) for the first leg it will show the speed required to reach the point reported....
....for the next two legs changing the speed ripples down and corrects the arrival time.....
.the last leg is set to 151 kt GS for two minutes as per RACAL ........ ]
Does the above mean that the aircraft flew into a cloud with rocks in it with the inevitable result?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
There are bound to be a few nit-picky pedants who will say
"Of course it flew into culmulo-granite, that's obvious!"
However, what I think you meant was
If that is what you meant, then I doubt there are many who would disagree with you if you said
If anyone does disagree with that statement, then I would describe them as blinkered, of a closed mind and probably a friend or colleague of Day, Wratten, Spiers, the scottish officer (or anyother staff officer implicated by the gross maladministration associated with the premature release to service of the Chinook Mk2).
I also suspect they (JP/Caz etc) might retort with
or sommat similar.
My answer to that predictable reaction is that I do have an open mind and I never said that a crew cock-up is NOT a possibility but I remain unconvinced that all the evidence proves negligence 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever'!
Does the above mean that the aircraft maybe flew into a cloud with rocks in it with the inevitable result?
"Of course it flew into culmulo-granite, that's obvious!"
However, what I think you meant was
"Was the ac flown intentionally into the Mull (i.e.suicide or gross negligence)? Or was the crew or ac possibly unable to avoid the culmulo-granite for some other reason (i.e. technical/control/navigational fault or human error)?"
"Well, we don't actually know why for sure and certainly not 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever'."
I also suspect they (JP/Caz etc) might retort with
"Closed mind? Pah! That's YOU Flipster/SFFP that is!"
My answer to that predictable reaction is that I do have an open mind and I never said that a crew cock-up is NOT a possibility but I remain unconvinced that all the evidence proves negligence 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever'!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip,
Sorry but no, what I said was what I meant. They may have flown into cloud and then into the hillside. The cumulo-granite theory is just that, theory, and thats all it will ever be unless someone would care to prove otherwise.
Sorry but no, what I said was what I meant. They may have flown into cloud and then into the hillside. The cumulo-granite theory is just that, theory, and thats all it will ever be unless someone would care to prove otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am only a thick ex-MetMan, but does not the good book say:
9. Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent.
QED
I was in St Boniface Church, JHQ Rheindahlen, when the news broke. The shock and loss was very real indeed to several in the congregation, who had friends on board.
To hold the aircrew to blame, given the manifold doubts expressed then and since, flies in the face of natural justice.
9. Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent.
QED
I was in St Boniface Church, JHQ Rheindahlen, when the news broke. The shock and loss was very real indeed to several in the congregation, who had friends on board.
To hold the aircrew to blame, given the manifold doubts expressed then and since, flies in the face of natural justice.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto,
Just as I predicted, ten days have passed since my 6874 and the principal doubters, Purdey and Caz, have maintained their silence.
That is because my 6874 was reasoned, logical and supported by a number of undisputable facts.
Their theory is based solely on a now discredited Boeing simulation.
They simply have nothing else to back up this theory.
Just as I predicted, ten days have passed since my 6874 and the principal doubters, Purdey and Caz, have maintained their silence.
That is because my 6874 was reasoned, logical and supported by a number of undisputable facts.
Their theory is based solely on a now discredited Boeing simulation.
They simply have nothing else to back up this theory.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Boeing report and more on speeds.....
The Boeing report by James Mitchell is mentioned quite often and it is a useful guide , but study it with caution as it does contain errors.....
.............perhaps the most obvious is his lack of knowledge of the geography of Northern Ireland , he thought that the Chinook could take off and travel directly to the Mull crash site at 500 feet agl/asl........only there are actually mountains in the way as posted previously and the clearance for the flight was understood to be 'not above 500 feet on the regional QNH'.........
The business of the 'mythical' right turn after waypoint change is another anomaly , Mitchell uses an initial track of 19.5 degrees true , but from the centre of Aldergrove airfield to the real position of the lighthouse is 19.8 degrees true......(he actually used a starting point of the stated position of the boundary radio call ?????.. which is wrong , as it is above the 500 foot limit for that part of the flight...when he converts this supposed 'fix' to a lat/long.it is obvious that he is unaware that VOR are aligned to magnetic north , so he plots a route from much further east than reality)..but....
When you measure from the BEL vor ,( close to the north/south runway which they departed from ), to the actual point of impact , the course is 21.23 degrees true , which passes through the point of waypoint change once that point is corrected for the GPS error and the slight offtrack to the right which they were flying......so there was no right turn...
...........but another point which keeps emerging is the unlikely 'calculated' groundspeed of 162.8 knots........Mr Mitchell states that ...........
..which gives 190 feet per second.............around 112 knots............very plausible as they may have hit the ground already..............
..but rather than pointing out this obvious speed indication , he tries to create some values using triangles of velocity........first using other recorded facts from the Racal report , and then by assuming that the aircraft/wreckage turned partly downwind to reach his 162.8 knots figure......
..no it isn't/doesn't ...........he has not noticed the display has rounded up the distance , and rounded down the time , the correct values give 158 knots if continuing to Corran......the same as the average for the whole route..........
This false speed information shows up some eight times recently in this thread..............and ..........
.......goodness me......
..they all seem to be from the same person.........some one called ...
...Cazxxxxxxxxxxxxx....??????????.................
.............perhaps the most obvious is his lack of knowledge of the geography of Northern Ireland , he thought that the Chinook could take off and travel directly to the Mull crash site at 500 feet agl/asl........only there are actually mountains in the way as posted previously and the clearance for the flight was understood to be 'not above 500 feet on the regional QNH'.........
The business of the 'mythical' right turn after waypoint change is another anomaly , Mitchell uses an initial track of 19.5 degrees true , but from the centre of Aldergrove airfield to the real position of the lighthouse is 19.8 degrees true......(he actually used a starting point of the stated position of the boundary radio call ?????.. which is wrong , as it is above the 500 foot limit for that part of the flight...when he converts this supposed 'fix' to a lat/long.it is obvious that he is unaware that VOR are aligned to magnetic north , so he plots a route from much further east than reality)..but....
When you measure from the BEL vor ,( close to the north/south runway which they departed from ), to the actual point of impact , the course is 21.23 degrees true , which passes through the point of waypoint change once that point is corrected for the GPS error and the slight offtrack to the right which they were flying......so there was no right turn...
...........but another point which keeps emerging is the unlikely 'calculated' groundspeed of 162.8 knots........Mr Mitchell states that ...........
there was a subsequent GPS position recorded, which had not yet been processed by the SuperTANS. This position shows the aircraft at N5518.64, W00547.78, which is approximately 190 feet from the originally
recorded position, at a bearing of 21 degrees. The same paragraph states that the GPS receiver updates its position once per second, and transmits that data five times per second to the SuperTANS. The SuperTANS continuously reads this input data, but only processes it once per second. Consequently, it can be surmised that the difference between the two positions is separated by 1 second,
recorded position, at a bearing of 21 degrees. The same paragraph states that the GPS receiver updates its position once per second, and transmits that data five times per second to the SuperTANS. The SuperTANS continuously reads this input data, but only processes it once per second. Consequently, it can be surmised that the difference between the two positions is separated by 1 second,
..but rather than pointing out this obvious speed indication , he tries to create some values using triangles of velocity........first using other recorded facts from the Racal report , and then by assuming that the aircraft/wreckage turned partly downwind to reach his 162.8 knots figure......
Using this airspeed, the evidence of the tire tracks, and the wind speed, an aircraft groundspeed just prior to impact of 162.8kt is arrived at, with an aircraft heading of 17 degrees T or 24.8 degrees M.
This calculated groundspeed value is consistent with the value of groundspeed derived from the last displayed values of distance to go and time to go values that were recovered from the steering display. These values were 86.7nm and 32min, respectively, which results in a groundspeed of 162.6kt, i.e. very similar to the calculated value of 162.8kt,
This calculated groundspeed value is consistent with the value of groundspeed derived from the last displayed values of distance to go and time to go values that were recovered from the steering display. These values were 86.7nm and 32min, respectively, which results in a groundspeed of 162.6kt, i.e. very similar to the calculated value of 162.8kt,
This false speed information shows up some eight times recently in this thread..............and ..........
.......goodness me......
..they all seem to be from the same person.........some one called ...
...Cazxxxxxxxxxxxxx....??????????.................
Last edited by Robin Clark; 1st Oct 2010 at 10:27. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried to gently put you right re analysis but after this rubbish - well, the regulars here will love you for contributing to the confusion.
What is wrong with you people?
Oh, perhaps I should point just one bit out for the benefit of occasional or new readers who may be confused by your half-baked carp:
<<When you measure from the BEL vor ,( close to the north/south runway which they departed from ),>>
Where did you get that from?
The VOR is significantly removed from their departure position at Aldergrove.
The radar fix was consistent with them following 027 from Aldergrove (not the VOR as would be expected in terms of "VOR navigation") - they were using their SuperTANS, not the VOR.
I suggest also you work out their track over the Antrim hills - they did do a straight line track on 027 all the way to waypoint change: it was possible, they couldn't have done much else in the time, and they were seen at Carnlough which was on this track.
What is wrong with you people?
Oh, perhaps I should point just one bit out for the benefit of occasional or new readers who may be confused by your half-baked carp:
<<When you measure from the BEL vor ,( close to the north/south runway which they departed from ),>>
Where did you get that from?
The VOR is significantly removed from their departure position at Aldergrove.
The radar fix was consistent with them following 027 from Aldergrove (not the VOR as would be expected in terms of "VOR navigation") - they were using their SuperTANS, not the VOR.
I suggest also you work out their track over the Antrim hills - they did do a straight line track on 027 all the way to waypoint change: it was possible, they couldn't have done much else in the time, and they were seen at Carnlough which was on this track.
Last edited by walter kennedy; 28th Sep 2010 at 15:05. Reason: addition
While the discussion of the relative merits of the various Boeing and Racal reports is interesting, surely anyone remotely interested should be asking this question – as the aircraft’s Nav and Comms Systems (in their entirety) only had Switch On Clearance, why was it being flown in the first place?
In the context of clearing the pilots, tease that one out and watch senior MoD staffs squirm. So why the reluctance to “go there”?
In the context of clearing the pilots, tease that one out and watch senior MoD staffs squirm. So why the reluctance to “go there”?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tec et al
Even Jane's mentions that a PLS system was fitted to some RAF a/c by 1999 - we know it was fitted earlier but people seem reluctant to discuss the system as it is still used operationally - well if it is in the public domain now, what is the harm in discussing its use at an earlier date?
Watch you all squirm?
Even Jane's mentions that a PLS system was fitted to some RAF a/c by 1999 - we know it was fitted earlier but people seem reluctant to discuss the system as it is still used operationally - well if it is in the public domain now, what is the harm in discussing its use at an earlier date?
Watch you all squirm?
Sorry Walter, but there is a fundamental difference between what you and I are discussing.
The evidence available does not prove conclusively CPLS was in ZD576 on 2nd June1994. It shows it was "cleared" for Chinook HC Mk2 some months later. Of course, I concede there is the possibility, perhaps probability, it was in ZD576 as a trials fit. And, as you know, I have been extremely supportive of your consistent claim that such an equipment exists, despite many here saying it doesn't. For what it's worth, my own opinion is the chances are it was fitted and it is the classified equipment alluded to by the BoI witness. (And the fact there was a classified equipment, on MoD's own admission, but no complementary section in the RTS, merely demonstrates the immaturity of airworthiness process).
On the other hand, there exists definite proof, in the form of internal MoD correspondence provided under Freedom of information, that the aircraft did not, even remotely, come near to satisfying the airworthiness regulations. What part of "Switch On Clearance Only" is not understood? It shouldn't have been flying. End of.
The evidence available does not prove conclusively CPLS was in ZD576 on 2nd June1994. It shows it was "cleared" for Chinook HC Mk2 some months later. Of course, I concede there is the possibility, perhaps probability, it was in ZD576 as a trials fit. And, as you know, I have been extremely supportive of your consistent claim that such an equipment exists, despite many here saying it doesn't. For what it's worth, my own opinion is the chances are it was fitted and it is the classified equipment alluded to by the BoI witness. (And the fact there was a classified equipment, on MoD's own admission, but no complementary section in the RTS, merely demonstrates the immaturity of airworthiness process).
On the other hand, there exists definite proof, in the form of internal MoD correspondence provided under Freedom of information, that the aircraft did not, even remotely, come near to satisfying the airworthiness regulations. What part of "Switch On Clearance Only" is not understood? It shouldn't have been flying. End of.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who flies regularly over Antrim, I can categorically say that there is no way an aircraft can depart Aldergrove (any part of the airfield) and maintain 500ft AMSL in a straight line to Carnlough. There is the small matter of a number of hills, not least Slemish which is somewhere in the region of 1400ft high.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar Fix
Robin and Walter,
Read Tandemrotor 6543. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, there was no Radar Fix.
And again for people just visiting this site, it is worth pointing out that the precise figures quoted by Robin come mainly from thr RACAL analysis.
The RACAL analysis gives us a scenario. It does not, and does not even claim to reconstruct the final few minutes of the flight.
That is not my opinion, it is that given by RACAL themselves in para 1.1.5 of their analysis.
Read Tandemrotor 6543. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, there was no Radar Fix.
And again for people just visiting this site, it is worth pointing out that the precise figures quoted by Robin come mainly from thr RACAL analysis.
The RACAL analysis gives us a scenario. It does not, and does not even claim to reconstruct the final few minutes of the flight.
That is not my opinion, it is that given by RACAL themselves in para 1.1.5 of their analysis.