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 29th Sep 2010, 23:04
  #6841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,470
It is stated that `power-down` on the Stans was at 16.59.10 Z, and that this is `impact time`.However, the AAIB reports that the `power` switch was in the OFF position,but is not mentioned in the RACAL report. So,there is also no mention in the AAIB report about the times on the clocks on the aircraft instrument panel, no mention whatsoever,which I find difficult to believe,as in a lot of accidents,the clock can give a good indication of corroborating impact.Again , there were possibly another 29 watches on the crew/pax(assumption) which can confirm that to a reasonable degree,but no mention either. Is it important ? Well ,it may be to determine if there is/was the possibility that the crew turned off the Stans,or whether the impact actually did that....
Furthe in the summary of the BOI,para 45,Discussion of Altimeter setting,AnnexP, it is stated that the LHS altimeter Baro scale setting was 989 mbs,the RHS altimeter was set to 991mbs,Aldergrove QNH. Somewhere I have seen that the Portree QNH was given as 991mbs, as that`area` would be entered en-route to Corran. However,it also states that the local QNH for the Mull area was 998 mbs.(This is also the QNH set into the Stans on initialisation,(refer to p332- anomalies). This is totally incorrect,as a pressure distribution over that area between Aldergrove/Mull, a distance of 43 nm,and a pressure change of 7-8 mbs would give a `geostrophic` wind of some 80kts,or about 60 kts at the surface,possibly more.....but this was never checked !!!!..

So , has anyone seen a `surface pressure analysis` for the day in question ??
I can only say that I would not have flown low-level from Lyneham to Lossie that day ,if that had been the case...Syc..
sycamore is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 23:32
  #6842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Syc
One of the baro alts had a subscale setting that could have been the QFE at Aldergrove; this could have been noted before departure and used for crossing the shoreline at way point A where there is a known LZ and in any case the level swathe of ground that starts there is at the same elevation as Aldergrove. (This is one of the indicators I used to deduce a plan to cross there, either landing at the LZ or passing over it whilst initiating a turn to swing around the back of the lighthouse and thence back out to the 028 track to Corran – a scenario I believe I have explained some time ago.) I would have thought that the distance was not so great nor the time as to diminish the value of not having to interpret forecasts but to set the subscale to QFE, note it, and use it later for reference to the ground of the same level; of course, this value would/should not have been left on that subscale over the first long leg (Antrim hills, etc) suggesting the local activity.

RC & others
<<the clearance for the flight was understood to be 'not above 500 feet on the regional QNH>>
Not getting confused with VFR “500 feet above the ground”, are you?
You are not seriously suggesting that they went around the Antrim hills, are you? The math is simple enough - do it properly - the most obvious scenario fits - nothing other than a straight leg from Aldergrove to waypoint A gets near a fit; remember also that the all up weight was constrained so as to allow single engine flight (in emergency obviously) which left this flight fuel critical - further, they were short of duty time - together points to straight lines at max comfy cruise which analysis supports.
Had the weather been a bit worse, the alternative route Ald to H (Curran) to B (Corran) was a safe option (low and clear all the way) but with the geometry of the routes (remember that little map I posted yonks back?) going Ald to A (Mull) then back out to that HB track would have been exactly the same fuel and timewise.

Last edited by walter kennedy; 29th Sep 2010 at 23:42. Reason: addition
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 07:23
  #6843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Walter, do the maths. If the 'clearance' was not above 500ft on the RPS, what would their actual altitude be based on the Aldergrove QNH? If they really did operate at/below 500ft on the RPS for the duration of the flight, there is absolutely no way they could have flown as straight line. It is probable that they did fly a straight line, but if they did this they did not stay at/below 500ft amsl. After all, once they were 9nm away from Aldergrove there was no 'clearance' for them to comply with.

Personally, I'm getting a bit bogged down in this whole Mitchell report thing. My original point was that the report contains so many assumptions (and errors) that any conclusions taken from it must be questionable.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 08:44
  #6844 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Originally Posted by cgb
so many assumptions
- those words are the key throughout, are they not? They cover the R O's 'findings' too. This is why 'no doubt what so ever' cannot be upheld. All strength to Lord P's writing elbow.
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 09:15
  #6845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Absolutely. This isn't about proving what happened, it is about disproving the 'no doubt' argument.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 18:53
  #6846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
BUT this should surely have been an ideal forum for improving the understanding of what really happened which, if at any stage it becomes apparent that the basic premise for the flight had not be truthfully declared, that an extra objective/task had been put upon them without being declared, or there had been “new” equipment on board that had not been mentioned, then the verdict of gross negligence would simply have to be overturned pending a new and fuller independent inquiry.
Why so many remain silent is the worrying thing – you are supposed to be living in a free country and should be able to raise concerns or contribute your knowledge to debates when arguments about security that have gagged you seem unjustified.
What was it that philosopher Goethe said? - something like”No man is so hopelessly enslaved than he who falsely believes that he is free.”?
Even if the simplistic legal nicety gets their names cleared (which it has failed to do despite enormous effort over the years), how would it be right to end the debate while there are unanswered basic questions which could have led to a real inquiry into how this team perished at such a convenient time for a dodgy political solution? This team did not have confidence in the proposed peace process, saw it as wrong to make compromises with terrorists, and indeed had plans for much increased aggressive action against the terrorists.
Had the crew been involved in an activity near the Mull that depended upon a person or persons on the ground doing the right thing, there existed an opportunity for an arranged crash and, however unpalatable this may be, because of the implications for how our country is really run we must uncover every stone to either confirm or eliminate this awful possibility. There is sufficient evidence that there was a deliberate approach to a particular point and the requisite on board equipment turns out to have been fitted as was deduced to have been necessary to explain the pilots' approach.
Get your heads out of the sand – this is your country.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 19:25
  #6847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by walter kennedy View Post
Why so many remain silent is the worrying thing
Walter,

I know you will never see it but there is a chuffin great big clue there.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 21:43
  #6848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Seldom
Your point would have been very good had it not been for those few who did and progressed the understanding - it is their lacking of the courage of their convictions to come forward openly that is the point plus several basic points that should have been clarified that haven't and the lack of correction to posters writing erroneously when it has no impact.
Had many issues been properly addressed and an absolute blank been drawn on my particular line of inquiry, then your point would have been valid regarding the latter.
Thus your smart reply is, I suggest, moot.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 21:52
  #6849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Walter,

If you genuinely believe that after all these years all those who would have had to have been involved in what you suggest are still keeping "schtum" you truly are barking mad.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2010, 00:17
  #6850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Walter, in my opinion you do those who have posted here over the years a grave injustice. Just because they have not flocked to your banner is not a comment on them, rather it is one on the likelihood of the scenario that you propose. This is a tough forum to convince, consisting in the main of experienced and professional aviators, serving or retired. You have made your pitch. It has been consistent and at times compelling. You were the one who claimed that the "wacky radios" existed and could have been fitted that day. It turns out you were right. Well done! But one swallow does not a summer make!

I sympathise with the reaction that you have been faced with here, but that as they say is Show Business! As one of those who pitched the Airworthiness Angle I can also empathise with your frustration, for we got much the same reaction of hostility and disbelief in the beginning. In the end though the facts speak for themselves and gradual acceptance emerged of our central theme that whatever caused the crash of ZD576 it was, together with its sister HC2's, Grossly Unairworthy when it crashed. Of course there were those who refused to accept that, strangely silent now it seems, but as they say it's all about some of the people some of the time!

Now, as BOAC says, it's all down to Lord Philip. Upon him rests an awesome responsibility, for this is no longer merely about the reputations of two deceased Junior Officers, important though that is. This is not even merely about the terrible tragedy of 2nd June 1994, tragic though that was. It is about stopping the continuing avoidable airworthiness related accidents that have befallen UK Military Aviation over more than two decades. It is about reforming the system of Airworthiness Provision to the Military Fleets. It is about wresting that away from the MOD that has shown itself to be criminally incompetent in the discharge of that duty. It is about the formation of a truly independent MAA and MAAIB. It is in short about avoiding future needless deaths. If his Lordship starts us on that road he will be forever celebrated in the History of UK Military Aviation.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2010, 02:18
  #6851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
If his Lordship starts us on that road he will be forever celebrated in the History of UK Military Aviation.
Well said Chug... Unfortunately, the "History of UK Military Aviation" may see it's sunset before the good Lord passes on the way the military is being treated today...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2010, 22:16
  #6852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Chug
<<... in my opinion you do those who have posted here over the years a grave injustice.>>
Hardly compares to the injustice to the crew, the passengers, and the British public if I am right.
What you don't appreciate is that I, too, hope I'm wrong - the implications would be very serious, not nice at all - but there is enough to support an activity that could have been wilfully interfered with and so the full details of any other activity they may have been tasked with needs to be brought to the attention of any new inquiry - we really need eliminate the possibility of wilful action by a third party.
Any experienced pilot, especially familiar with the area, when looking back through the transcripts of the previous inquiries would surely recognise the inadequacy of the descriptions of the weather, the planning, the function of equipments and their use, the significance of instrument settings as found, etc.
Indeed, if any of you looks back through these transcripts, you would be reminded of the disgraceful attempts to paint the pilots as cowboys.
So perhaps you all (not just the regular posters) should reflect on getting some decent background material into the next inquiry - the non flying, non technical legal types need something better than the omissions and obfuscation that the RAF has given them in the past.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 09:11
  #6853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Dear Walt,

Personally and for so, so many reasons, I don't believe that an approach to a 'covert' LZ using CPLS or even a flypast of someone holding a PRC112 was either planned or attempted but neither was it an impossiblity.

So, bizarrely, I find myself agreeing with you (What am I saying!?). If there is even the remotest chance of your scenario happening, (which you firmly and laudably uphold in the face of ridicule), then it should be investigated, if only to remove it from the realms of possibility. The assertion that the ac may have had a CPLS Rx fitted needs to be confirmed - but anecdotal evidence seems to give substance to your suspicions. I seem to recall that some of those who were in Aldergrove at the time might confirm this; have you got anyone to do so or are there photographs (v doubtful)? Has anyone checked the remainder of the wreckage, I believe, still in a hangar at Lee-on-Solent for suspicious gaps of the correct dimensions in the cockpit panels? If it was fitted, where is the paper-work for a trials fit of CPLS (inc operating limitations) or the Service Deviation to permit use (given the parlous state of the airworthiness clearances, I doubt there was either)?

If CPLS wasn't fitted, of course.....that's the end of it but I agree it would merit a closer look if doubt is to be erradicated.

I would suggest that there is little more you can do for now than to put your evidence and thinking on paper and send it Lord Philip.

In truth, the very remote possibility of CPLS being fitted to ZD576 at all certainly gives rise to further doubt.

Good Luck and Kind Regards,

flipster

Last edited by flipster; 2nd Oct 2010 at 09:21.
flipster is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 12:53
  #6854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Flipster,

See #5835 and #5838 - thoughts?

S4G
Sand4Gold is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 15:17
  #6855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
S4G

Thoughts? Yes plenty of them, thanks and none of them confirm for certain whether CPLS was fitted or not. I think that someone mentioned there'd be loads of STF paperwork - well, knowing what we know about the airworthiness paper-trail, I'm not so sure about that! Also, if the BoI never mentioned or discussed CPLS, it certainly wasn't going to mention its STF paperwork either. There is enough wriggle-room there for a whale!
But like so much in this affair, we just don't know. All I do know is that, if fitting of CPLS was possible as a STF (which it could have been), then Walt is entitled to ask the question; that is his right - one which we should all uphold - but we don't have to believe him.
For record (again), you will also note, that I do NOT susbscribe to his theory for many reasons - nicely illustrated by ShyTorque's eloquent words...

If a trial of a new portable DME equipment was being run, (I'm certain it wasn't) it would not have been run in this way, in marginal weather, towards high terrain, with high value passengers, who could neither contribute to the trial, nor gain anything from it by being on board. I say this from my own personal experience of being involved in RAF trials of other new equipments during my time.
and

WHY did JT ask for a completely different airframe for the flight, if only this Mk2 airframe had the DME equipment on board and this trial was the real reason for the flight?
at 5836

Walt, will you now consider my suggestion and leave it at that for a while?
flipster is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 15:41
  #6856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 56
Posts: 1,990
Jon didn't want to fly the Mk2 and was well hacked off that they couldn't take the Mk1. This was witnessed by a crewroom full of 230 Sqn aircrew. I would swear on oath that just before the flight he stated the above.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 15:50
  #6857 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
A while back I attempted a crude analysis of the chances of such a 'dastardly act' (as suggested by Walt) succeeding and not being 'uncovered' because it failed for some reason. I think I came out at between 95 and 100% prob of failure - and thus discovery - due to possible weather changes and crew reaction - not worth the risk, surely? A major political upset had it come to light. It would only take the crew to be suspicious, slow up early due to the cloud cover, see the 'target' go past with '1/2 mile to run' etc etc and the lid would have come off. All with 'unapproved' kit too.

Add in the 'tight' duty hours scenario and I cannot see this running at all. I trust Walt will heed the advice here and submit his theory formally to Lord P?
BOAC is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 16:21
  #6858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Flipster,

Thanks for the response - I, too, have stated that I don't support what is commonly known as 'Walter's Theory'.

My point was that the MOD denied such equipment was fitted, but we have nigegilb's statements to the contrary - he has yet to retract them. Its usage, again, if fitted, is not the point.

One has to wonder, if true, what other information was suppressed by MOD - if evidence was to come forward to support nigegilb's claims (by the author himself maybe?), it would make the MOD's position even more untenable.

S4G
Sand4Gold is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2010, 21:50
  #6859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Whilst I would not bet my mortgage on Walter being wrong I offer the following.

I am in my 37th year in the RAF. In that time I spent 14 years as an Avionics Technician, 10 years as a Puma Crewman and the last 13 years as a Herc Loadie.

In that time one of the things I have learned is that secrets very rarely stay secrets.

There is more chance of me winning first prize in the Euro Millions lottery than there is of all the folk who would have HAD to have been involved in what Walter suggests keeping quiet for this long.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 01:18
  #6860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
S4G, the evidence (a personal account), can be given in the first person (not me). Don't worry, it is in the right hands and I am sure will be properly dealt with.
nigegilb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.