Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vecvec thingy wrote:-
Probably better not to wake up a thread that has been asleep for two weeks because you got a bit tipsy... 
Yep. We have decided that they were below the safety altitude and that they were not VMC
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The weather was out of limits for Low Flying....that wasn't low flying, that was grubbing.
We call the first point 'low flying'.
dismissing out of hand the observations of all the others on the Mull who gave evidence to the BOI
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.
No-one apart from the yachtsman has any real idea what those conditions were.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Caz... You've successfully proven that this witness is utterly unreliable... You said:-
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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.