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 18th Nov 2010, 18:00
  #7021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey,
You complain about everyone else going round in circles.
Tucumseh answered you in full in 6473.
If you do not understand after you have read it again ask him to clarify.
dalek is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 18:13
  #7022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
JP, you summarise this scandal well, as would be expected of someone with your background and experience. As to who knew what and did or did not do what, that surely is partly the point of Lord Philip's Review. I say partly because one would hope that the Review will endeavour to determine how the RAF in particular arrived at the point that a Flight Safety regime that was the envy of all was reduced to the point of having to accept knowingly unairworthy aircraft into RAF service, as was the Chinook HC2 at RTS. It would seem that cause and effect can be traced back a decade before the period covered by Mr Haddon-Cave QC in his Nimrod Report. I had left the RAF long before that date so my understanding of what happened is garnered from this thread. You on the other hand were still serving then I believe. Perhaps you can comment on that cause and effect?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 20:08
  #7023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,550
Chugalug 2, I think that you'll find that JP retired from the RAF 4 years before the Mull accident...

For those who may not have seen this before, read Argyll News: Independent Review of evidence in 1995 Kintyre Chinook crash to be held in private? :Argyll,Kintyre,Chinook crash,independent review, | For Argyll

You might recognise the literary style of one contributor, if you are sufficiently perceptive.....

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING - The name of a certain Scottish Officer is mentioned....

Last edited by BEagle; 18th Nov 2010 at 20:23.
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 20:19
  #7024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

BOAC/Dalek. Please re-read and try to digest Item 3 of my earlier post, ie that there was a conspiracy between all the branches and at all the levels concerned. Please confirm that that is your conviction. Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 20:26
  #7025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
BEagle:
Chugalug 2, I think that you'll find that JP retired from the RAF 4 years before the Mull accident..
Beags, I was not talking about when Mull happened, but the decade that preceded the period covered by H-C. That is when the rot started. I believe that JP was still serving in the first half of that decade, hence my interest in any comments he might have on cause and effect....
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 20:34
  #7026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Cazatou
You wrote:

it should have read that the forecast weather " was suitable for the flight, but would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre."

Therefore the Chinook should have been at or above Safety Altitude as it approached the Mull and should only have descended to low level again once it was demonstrably certain that the weather conditions permitted flight in accordance with VFR.

The crew did not so do - with tragic results.
Just because the forecast indicates that conditions in the vicinity of the Mull might preclude VFR flight over the land is no reason to approach the area at or above Safety Altitude.

It is perfectly proper to approach such an area whilst flying VFR with a view to simply avoiding the bad weather with suitable lateral separation. There is no evidence to suggest that this is not what the crew of ZD576 were doing and the fact that the aircraft crashed into a cloud/fog-covered hill does not disprove that they were trying to fly around the weather when something caused the aircraft to diverge to the right and impact the hillside.

It is not logical to assume that, because the aircraft hit the ground in IMC conditions, the pilots must have wilfully flown the aircraft there. Nobody knows what happened and it is extremely unreasonable, lacking definitive evidence, to assume that the accident must have been caused by experienced aircrew ignoring one of the basic tenets of airmanship. Sure, it's a possibility, but no more than that and, IMHO, the more we hear about the (un)airworthiness of the Mk2 at that time, the less credible a possibility it becomes, especially when the required standard of proof is "beyond any doubt whatsoever".

Last edited by meadowbank; 19th Nov 2010 at 11:12. Reason: Final paragraph added.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 22:18
  #7027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey,

We have been here before. Just for once, before you demand answers from others, will you answer a question.
Do you accept that Tucumseh 6473 covers all the points you raised.
dalek is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 22:20
  #7028 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
It is truly amazing that so many of those here who claim 'low level experience' have NO idea of how it is done.
Originally Posted by meadowbank
It is perfectly proper to approach such an area whilst flying VFR
- and that, gentlemen, is how it is done, and has been done for decades. No 'pulling up' because there is a cloud on the coast (one 'experienced' low-leveller here). No 'climbing to SA' or 'turning back' because there is cloud on the Mull ahead (yet another).

Now - any more FACTS?
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2010, 23:35
  #7029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 373
So just to take it further then BOAC....

What would have been the "experienced" crew response to inadvertant entry into fog/cloud during such a VFR/in sight of land or sea/clear of cloud transit, particularly when such a professional crew would have been sharply aware of their relative position to the approaching hard stuff?

Whatever their expected trained response, it is also true that CFIT happens too - and sometimes inexplicably despite such an expert crew. A survey of RN Sea King accidents in proximity to Culdrose is part testament to that - and they had radar!

So nothing really gets resolved except returning to the key issue of what specific evidence was available to accurately determine the actual conditions, aircraft state and crew actions.....not enough remains the only conclusion.
Tallsar is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 08:16
  #7030 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Tallsar - I completely endorse your last paragraph, of course, but to answer your (rhetorical?) questions:

With no specific reference to this accident, inadvertent entry to imc requires an immediate decision, either to turn away (ie re-route), make an emergency pull-up to MSA or possibly to manoeuvre out of the 'imc' if terrain etc allows.

Yes, CFIT will always be with us. AKA "What's that goat doing standing in that cloud"?

Back to this accident, I would assume that an experienced crew like this one would have been fully aware of para 2, and it remains UNKNOWN AND UN-PROVABLE why their flight path followed as it did.

Incidentally, may I assume that all the dissenters have given up trying to support the 'imc at waypoint change' mantra or do we still have some diehard W&D supporters? If we can establish that we can move a long way out of this swamp.
BOAC is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 09:57
  #7031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. Tuc's post at 6473 by no means answers my four points at 5301; I suggest you read the two again and together, in particular what I said about deliberately concealing their failings. THAT was the outrageous accusation. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 12:24
  #7032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
John Purdey


I read the posts you referred to. I thought tecumseh's reply was very clear and concise.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "deliberately concealing their failings"? If you are referring to concealing problems with the aircraft before releasing it to the RAF, can you confirm if the release document passes on the warning from Boscombe Down that the software was dangerous and therefore the aircraft should not be flown? I assume the fact Boscombe made these statements is not disputed. Therefore, if they are not in the release paper, then they have been withheld or concealed. This would seem a simple point to prove or disprove what you claim but I'm sorry if I've missed something.
dervish is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 13:18
  #7033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. I suggest you read the whole conspirity allegation at 5301 yet again. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 13:53
  #7034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by John Purdey View Post
Dalek. My answer in 'no'. But nor is it necessary to know in great detail exactly what happened as the aircraft flew towards the Mull (for example, what did the two pilots say to each other? does it matter?
What we do know is that they continued towards and then into the granite in weather that made such a venture highly negligent at the very least. They should not have been where they were in those conditions in the first place (see numerous earlier posts). Now please answer my question.
JP
JP,

At 5306 you made the above statement. Can you just refresh for me the proof you have for the weather conditions the aircraft actually experienced?

I know you will not answer the question, not because you choose not to but simply because you can't. As in you can't because you don't actually know and you cannot prove what you allude to.

If what I have read on here is even close to being true then I can fully understand you continue to argue as you do however I really do Lord Philip get to see all the evidence. Not only the evidence with regards to the actual crash but also the evidence with regard to the manner with which the aircraft was hurried into service.

Hopefully like H-C the guilty will be quite rightly named and shamed.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 14:10
  #7035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
JP,

Forgive me if I have misunderstood but your 5301 is YOUR interpretation of the allegations which have been made by various posters on this thread. You have used YOUR words and then challenged Chugalug to agree with each of YOUR statements. (Good barrister cross examination technique, by the way)

In 6473, Tuc has put those "allegations" into his own words and, in my view, has done so rather well.

From the evidence available to most of us it is difficult to be certain that YOUR Points 4 & 5 are correct. On the other hand, there is probably more evidence that they are true than there is that Tapper and Cook were guilty of gross negligence. Regards.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 14:35
  #7036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Applying pressure...

Hello all.

I have recently written to my MP on the issue. I had expected that the new government might have been a bit more quick to do something. The new intake of MPs, of all flavours, are keen to show that they are ready to act on behalf of their constituents. They are also keen to be noticed by their party seniors. My chap wrote back very promptly and told me that he had written to the SoS for Defence - Liam Fox - on my behalf. I come from an area that has several (at the moment) large service establishments so the vote hungry little, sorry, democratically aware gentleman is inclined to please.

Might I presume to suggest that others might do the same (although I am sure that many have already done so)?
E L Whisty is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 14:50
  #7037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Pulse1. Please yourself. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 16:07
  #7038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 270
BEagle,

Having read the Argyll new report you helpfully posted, I scrolled down and read the comments. I have to say I was somewhat surprised by the last few. If what is written is true, it suggests that a whistleblower has come forward to claim that it was an inside job.

I've been following the thread, and if I didn't see it raised here. Apologies if it already has been.

Without more information, purely hearsay, but as has been mentioned before, a plausible scenario.

TN
Thor Nogson is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 16:25
  #7039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
John Purdey,

Your 5322 was repeated at 6470 and answered ( to my satisfaction anyway) by TUCUMSEH at 6473. You say this answer is not complete but do not say why. Why do you find it incomplete?
Why not ask Tucumseh to clarify?

I do believe that a person (or persons) at above Station level went out of their way to obstruct a fair and impartial outcome to the BOI procedure.
The failure to call Sqn Ldr Burke is just one example. The attempt to prevent him cooperating with the initial accident investigation is another.
Just how widespread this attempt to prevent a fair outcome went amongst the hierarchy I have no idea.

I do not know if this was done to "save someones skin" or if there was another motive. That is simply an educated guess on my part.

Why don't you enlighten us? You seem yo know all of the major players.
dalek is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 16:53
  #7040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by dalek View Post
John Purdey,

You seem yo know all of the major players.
"Know" or "is one of" and that as they say goes right to the heart of the matter.
Seldomfitforpurpose 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.