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 20th Oct 2010, 19:00
  #6901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Are we getting anywhere?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 22:45
  #6902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Yep. We have decided that they were below the safety altitude and that they were not VMC
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 01:17
  #6903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Vecvec thingy wrote:-

Yep. We have decided that they were below the safety altitude and that they were not VMC
Probably better not to wake up a thread that has been asleep for two weeks because you got a bit tipsy...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 10:50
  #6904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
AA

I would suspect that Vecvec has considerable experience of approaching unfamiliar coastlines in all sorts of weather.
cazatou is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 10:59
  #6905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by cazatou View Post
AA

I would suspect that Vecvec has considerable experience of approaching unfamiliar coastlines in all sorts of weather.
Symptomatic of the case in general eh Caz
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 11:08
  #6906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
SFFP

Has the fact that both Lighthouse keepers on the Mull were Qualified Met Observers who routinely took Met Observations as part of their duties slipped your mind again?

Furthermore, you appear to be dismissing out of hand the observations of all the others on the Mull who gave evidence to the BOI.
cazatou is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 11:21
  #6907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Caz,

Have you forgotten that there was not a single eye witness to the actual crash, not a single eye witness as to the weather at the actual crash site at the time of the impact and not a single eye witness as to whether the aircraft was actually in cloud at the time of the impact.

As I said suspect is symptomatic of this whole case in general.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 13:15
  #6908 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Yes, it was nice and quiet, wasn't it

Vecvec thingy meant to say

Yep. I have decided that they were below the safety altitude and that they were not VMC


We all agree with the first point - you agree with yourself on the second. We call the first point 'low flying'.
BOAC is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 13:32
  #6909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Flip me..........

So, they were below SA and may have been IMC. The more interesting question is why?

Now my crystal ball obviously isn't working as well as others' because I'm still having a little difficulty in reaching the 'no doubt' conclusion.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 18:08
  #6910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
you are both correct. As a maritime aviator pretty much every sortie I have flown in has involved an element of coasting out and coasting in and so yes I have lots of experience of flying along coastlines. In fact I have lots of experience flying along this particular coastline having spent many years flying out of a well known Scottish Air station. But we all know my feelings on this subject. The pilots were not grossly negligent. They were unprofessional and they displayed poor airmanship but they were not grossly negligent.


We call the first point 'low flying'.
The weather was out of limits for Low Flying....that wasn't low flying, that was grubbing.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2010, 21:00
  #6911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
dismissing out of hand the observations of all the others on the Mull who gave evidence to the BOI
Including the witnesses who testified they saw wreckage careering "across the hill" from 500 yards away, who were clearly not in thick fog or mist? If they didn't see the actual moment of impact, they saw the immediate aftermath no more than a second ot two later. Yes, it would seem many still ignore that evidence in favour of the more convenient "think fog" version.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 09:19
  #6912 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
Just a reminder that the weather conditions crucial to Wratten's judgement of gross negligence were those at way point change. The conditions witnessed by those on the Mull were only part of that picture. By definition (i.e. very poor local visibility) a very small part of the picture.

No-one apart from the yachtsman has any real idea what those conditions were.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 12:41
  #6913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Much speculation and opinon from both sides (those who are certain, on the basis of no evidence, that they know what happened, and those who in the absence of evidence believe it unlikely that the full facts will ever be known).

However, at least there is now conclusive written evidence for the fact that the aircraft was not airworthy, many of its systems were suspect, the release to Service was fraudulent and Air Rank officers responsible for that were demonstrably guilty of gross negligence.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 12:44
  #6914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
tucumseh

Just to remind you of the evidence of Mr Ellacott that the Chinook had passed over him - "I then heard the sound of a propeller going around for about 4 or 5 seconds and then I heard an explosion .... Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". "It was difficult to say how far I was from the point of the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards."

The speed assessed by AAIB at impact equated to slightly more than 250 ft per second - which equates to more than 80 yards a second.
cazatou is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 12:54
  #6915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Tucumseh. Your post "Including the witnesses who testified they saw wreckage careering "across the hill" from 500 yards away," is very interesting. I do not recall reading this evidence before; can you please give us the names of these witnesses? Rip van W.
John Purdey is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 13:13
  #6916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Caz

Thank you. I have consistently acnowledged the variable nature of the evidence which merely highlights the patchy nature of the fog/mist on the hill that day.

My post was intended to present a balanced picture because MoD has consistently cherry-picked the evidence, and in many cases lied about it, to justify the views of the Reviewing Officers.

That balanced picture introduces doubt, where MoD claim there is no doubt.



John Purdey

I thought from your previous posts you had read the BoI report and attachments. Please do so, then we can discuss the contents if you wish.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 14:45
  #6917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Well Caz... You've successfully proven that this witness is utterly unreliable... You said:-

Just to remind you of the evidence of Mr Ellacott that the Chinook had passed over him - "I then heard the sound of a propeller going around for about 4 or 5 seconds and then I heard an explosion .... Visibility at this time was only about nine or ten feet maximum". "It was difficult to say how far I was from the point of the explosion, but I don't think I could have been any more than 100 yards."

The speed assessed by AAIB at impact equated to slightly more than 250 ft per second - which equates to more than 80 yards a second.
Let's give the chap the benefit of the doubt and say it was 4 seconds before he heard the explosion. That, per the speed assessment, equates to 320 yards... Yet he claims to have been no more than 100 yards. How far could he see?
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 15:21
  #6918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Tucumseh. Out here in the bundu I do not have access to the documents. I would appreciate an answer to the question. Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 16:14
  #6919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
John Purdey

If you have no access to such fundamental source information, how can you speak with such apparent authority on the events of 2nd June 1994 and the rulings of the RAF Star Chamber?

Perhaps when they next meet, you should ask why they were so selective with the evidence, and so creative with that which does not exist.

Be quick, submissions to Lord Philip are due now.


BTW, Bath is far less the bundu than my humble tentage, yet I can still download the documents.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2010, 20:23
  #6920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Tucumseh. I am not parading any particular authority, but merely asking you for some expansion of the facts to which you lay claim. If you feel unable to say who these eye-witnesses were, then some unkind folk might think they do not exist. I'm sure that cannot be the case. With all good wishes, as always, JP

Last edited by John Purdey; 6th Nov 2010 at 20:25. Reason: omission
John Purdey 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.