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 16th Nov 2010, 16:02
  #7001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Caz:

You really are a piece of work...

You just typed:-

The Chinook impacted at a Groundspeed assessed as 150 kts which is in excess of 250 ft per second. Mr Ellacott stated "I then heard the the sound of a propellor going around for about four of five seconds and then I heard an explosion. Visibility at this time was only about 9 or 10 feet maximum". He then went on to say that he did not think that he could have been more than 100 yards from the point of the explosion.

The Chinook would have been at least 1000 ft from Mr Ellacott when he first heard it
Note:- My bold...

But you originally typed:-

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 ....
There's a big difference between the two. Either you are confused and don't think clearly or you were being deliberately evasive. I would suggest that, in either case, your input, opinions and, dare I say it, motives regarding this issue are questionable at best.

Last edited by Airborne Aircrew; 16th Nov 2010 at 16:27.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:01
  #7002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by cazatou View Post
Airborne Aircrew

The Chinook impacted at a Groundspeed assessed as 150 kts which is in excess of 250 ft per second. M It's about Ellacott stated "I then heard the the sound of a propellor going around for about four of five seconds and then I heard an explosion. Visibility at this time was only about 9 or 10 feet maximum". He then went on to say that he did not think that he could have been more than 100 yards from the point of the explosion.

The Chinook would have been at least 1000 ft from Mr Ellacott when he first heard it whilst he and his Brother in Law were looking for WW2 Aircraft Crash Sites. Mr Ellacott immediately set of towards the Crash Site whilst his Brother in Law went to the Lighthouse to raise the alarm.

I fail to see how you consider that I denigrated Mr Ellacott.
I suspect it would have been a considerably greater distance than a 1000' or roughly 340 yards from him when he first heard it. It's about the noisiest helicopter on the planet and as such you generally hear it ages before you ever see it and the notion that one could sneak up on you to less than 400 yards before you actually heard it is tosh.

Does rather mess with your timing calculations
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:44
  #7003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
dalek
What restrictions on pms? - I send and receive pms.
The rest of your post is pathetic - want points debating? - what about Burke?
He has been exemplary in misleading:
remember the inquiry when the pedal was pushed left and he said that such yaw demands were inappropriate for helicopters at speed, describing single rotor helos in a normal banked turn - thus wasting the opportunity for the inquiry to consider that in an emergency a pilot could turn a tandem rotor sideways for a quick stop?;
and engine runaways? while this one was found to have had the engines matched at an intermediate level? and that the action in the case of a runaway would have been to initiate a climb to load the engines (that could have been the hand of God in this instance)?
What a star he has been.
The visibility I have described is there for all to see who would make the effort to go up there in the summer.
Don't talk to me about going around in circles -
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:58
  #7004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Pssst... Walter... Dalek was talking to Vec Vec... (VVK), not you...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 18:56
  #7005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Walter

I am disappointed by your diatribe against Sqn Ldr Burke. Much of his evidence to the HoL and HoC inquiries was correcting MoD's errors / omissions / deceit on the subjects you mention. For example, Day's assertion that it was poor airmanship to turn "belly up" to an obstacle when turning away from it. And Reid's incorrect assertion about the function of the rudder pedal and, in particular, a senior RAF officer's failure to correct him even though sat beside him. This failure was repeated when Reid misled the Committee on numerous aspects of the FADEC used in HC Mk2.

Probably worst of all, Reid claimed Boscombe had never stated the aircraft was unsafe when, in fact, there exists a raft of correspondence from Boscombe stating precisely that; the most obvious being the firm and unequivocal statement that the aircraft should not be released for Service flying.

It would seem Sqn Ldr Burke had to spend much of his time revealing MoD's lies for what they were. In my book, he is indeed a star. Whereas my contempt for the Stars who briefed Reid and perpetuated these lies knows no bounds.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 19:44
  #7006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
That's better.
Tuc, whatever good you think he's done, my points stand - he did not use the opportunity he had as an experienced pilot of tandem rotor helicopters to educate the inquiry participants into the possibilities for them to consider - indeed, he effectively trashed important indicators as to the situation the pilots were in.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 20:32
  #7007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Walter

What you're actually saying is Sqn Ldr Burke may have missed an opportunity to get a point across. For that, you launch into him. Just remember that these committees give witnesses the chance to clarify points after the event, because witnesses (e.g. Sqn Ldr Burke) do not necessarily hear what the other side (MoD) say at the time. I'm not sure if you have read that supplementary evidence. The Committees were left in no doubt that Reid et al had lied through their back teeth.


I'd prefer people to remember there would have been no need for him to give evidence in the first place had MoD simply told the truth. Had they taken the slightest heed of the regulations governing aviation safety, the aircraft would not have been flying. Not unlike the Nimrod tragedy. In fact, it is even more clear cut than Nimrod, which actually had a Service Release, but based on a flawed Safety Case.

Let us hope Lord Philip, like Mr Haddon-Cave, sees through their deceit.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:03
  #7008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
I did read the supp evidence but it was too weak too late - still missing the point about the opportunity? - it was wasted.
Meanwhile he has not saved your time by eliminating engine control problems from your airworthiness issue (ie the matched power level and the absence of apparent required action in the case of a runaway).
Nor has he helped you understand the unlikelihood of such an a/c maintaining straight and level in the event of a control jam - an unlikelihood multiplied when apparently still following an intended track (035).
All the available data fits with a deliberate approach to a fixed point (that just happened to be a handy line for a swing around the light house) which, for whatever reason, they misjudged;
had it been all their own idea, then they would have been negligent to some degree but, even in the absence of any equipment testing, had they been requested to do this approach then it would have been just a bad airmanship issue - so why not press for disclosure of the detailed planning? Going by way of the Mull made no sense for a simple ferry flight short of time and on fuel - they should have cut towards waypoint B miles earlier than waypoint change if they had no need to get in close to the Mull - check out the Kintyre coast from the Mull up to Corran - a ridiculous option in the conditions of the day with their limitations - anyway, as I have tried to point out previously, it looked like they were going to go from the Mull out to the 028 track to Corran after touching base there.
Against this common sense you (collectively speaking) prefer to pin your hopes on the a/c going wrong just at this point in such a way that they could do nothing about it, you seemingly oblivious to the continuous control functionality required for the preceding 40 miles, and ignoring (thanks in part to Sqn Ldr Burke) that they apparently had control in the last seconds, not just in initiating any random evasive manoeuvre but the sideways yaw that was their best option (with their intermediate power setting that would not have allowed much of a zoom climb) when they realised their proximity to the terrain.
Get your heads out of the sand.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 01:40
  #7009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
collectively speaking
Walter:

Sorry, but that made me laugh in the best possible way...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 06:44
  #7010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Got me there!
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 07:45
  #7011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Walter

There are a few schools of thought represented here. Some stick to the RO's assertion they know beyond all doubt what happened. You want to introduce a theory the BoI and RO's didn't consider in any detail.

Some of us simply want MoD to recognise the burden of proof lies with them; and they have not met it.

You talk of Sqn Ldr Burke and "my" airworthiness issue. To the best of my knowledge, the Sqn Ldr was and remains an advocate of applying the mandated regulations; as am I.

On the other hand, MoD do not advocate this and have been prepared, many times, to place this in writing. In the context of Chinook, they have been bold enough to back their policy by supplying papers demonstraing beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Mk2 did not meet the Secretary of State's criteria when it was released to service. I don't need to know why ACAS made this decision, although it would be good to know; mainly because it may be that he was acting under orders. But, demonstrably, the decision to ignore the regulations was made and that single act introduces, in my mind, reasonable doubt. That is my sole aim here.

Of course, there is overlap between our schools of thought. For your theory to be true would require use of CPLS or similar. If you insist this was used, then by definition you are supporting the thrust of my argument. CPLS is not mentioned in the list of Navigation or Communications equipment cleared for use in the Mk2 (a simple fact, as the list is a complete blank), there is no Service Deviation to use it in June 1994 and there is no record of Boscombe having tested or trialled it before then to establish installed performance and, hence, derive limitations.

Unsurprising really, as Boscombe weren't due to commence trialling the base build standard until April 1994, a process delayed by (a) MoD's failure to implement various policies, leaving Boscombe high and dry, and (b) Boscombe's decision to cease flying (twice). There is, however, strong evidence to suggest CPLS was fitted to ZD576 at Odiham before she deployed to NI.

There, in a few sentences I've listed so many breaches of the airworthiness regulations it makes Nimrod seem competent by comparison - all derived from your theory. We are not so far apart.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 07:52
  #7012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
WK

All the available data fits with a deliberate approach to a fixed point (that just happened to be a handy line for a swing around the light house) which, for whatever reason, they misjudged
I will accept "The very limited evidence, together with a great deal of wild conjecture unsupported by any other evidence suggests that they might have been carrying out the operation (for which no other records exist) suggested by Walter."

To keep such an operation secret, given the consequences, is so improbable compared to the other conjectures supplied by all other contributors to the thread that I (and everybody else) dismissed it long ago.

Don't bother replying WK, I have mostly given up reading any of your posts.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 08:18
  #7013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
All available data fits.
No it does not. The original Boeing Simulation and the Cable figures conflict.
That is why a further Boeing Analysis was done. Both the simulation and analysis rely heavily on the RACAL analysis.
What you mean Walter, is that if you cherry pick your evidence you come to the conclusion you want.

The available data is based partly on the RACAL analysis.
Para 1.1.5 "may" and "not".
dalek is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2010, 12:24
  #7014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
I think Dalek has the nub of this. W&D produced their infamous finding in a disreputable attempt to divert attention from the known Gross Unairworthiness of the HC2 as Released to Service, a flagrant breach of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations. Walter pours contempt on anyone (everyone?) who does not share his interpretation of the "facts" (opinions?) that there was a preplanned secret and subversive side to this mission that required the pilots to make an approach to the Mull rather than to turn short of it. In other words he shares with the MOD an agenda that requires the evidence to be disregarded or subverted to arrive at his preordained verdict, ironic given his implication that Senior Officers would have issued the order for such an operation as he describes.
Before you turn the tables on me, Walter, I have no agenda other than to see this blatant injustice reversed and an impartial investigation into the award of an RTS to the Chinook HC2, that Boscombe Down said should be grounded as it was Grossly Unairworthy.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 11:26
  #7015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Chugalug2. Your post
"....WandD produced their infamous findings in a disreputable attempt to divert attention from the known unworthiness of the HC2 in a flagrant breach of the UK airworthiness regulations.."
does less than justice to the full conspiracy allegations which were:

1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.

You will recall endorsing this nonsense at post 5302. Yours as ever, JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 15:04
  #7016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
John Purdey

With all due respect, when you first raised the 5 points you list above, I recall someone replied that there was no need for 5. (a whistleblower) because the facts confirming the other 4 spoke for themselves (or words to that effect).

I read with great interest some recent posts discussing lack of proper clearances for the aircraft. I think it would be very foolish for anyone to make such a statement unless it could be supported. I have no direct experience of such work but I do know there are very strict regulations governing it. MoD has a "history" here and a poor one at that. For you to describe the statement as "nonsense" must mean you have evidence MoD implemented the regulations to the letter. I respectfully suggest you are mistaken, or have been misled, if only because of Boscombe's well documented advice that the software was unverifiable.
dervish is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 15:20
  #7017 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
JP - 5 is wrong.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 17:45
  #7018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service. Definitely yes
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown. Possible, or they may have been merely ignorant and incompetent.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings. Apparently yes, given any other plausible reason to overide the findings of the BOI, and the failure to comply with relevant regulations.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels See 2 above
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy. Nonsense.

Fitter2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 17:45
  #7019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

BOAC. .....and the other four? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 17:58
  #7020 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Mr Speaker - I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer from the honorable gentleman at 51.50N
BOAC 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.