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 19th Nov 2010, 16:58
  #7041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
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.


I read that too. There is one prominent poster who claims it was an inside job but he doesn't post under the name Eyres. Sounds like a loony to me.



Purdey - No reply?
dervish is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 17:23
  #7042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. If you are satisfied with Tuc's answer, then why bother asking me? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 17:29
  #7043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dervish. As I have made clear before, I have no access to the original documents. My comments were based on the (very) many posts relating to this topic, which led to my summary at 5301. Shall we stop this endless repetition now? Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 17:41
  #7044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
You reopened this particular can JP in your 7095. If you wish to close it again, fine by me.
Whether you accept it or not. RB was prevented from giving evidence to the BOI and strongly discouraged from cooperating with the original accident investigation.
Or are you saying Sqn Ldr Burke was dishonest?
dalek is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2010, 19:25
  #7045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Dalek. I have never commented on Sqn Ldr Burke ; will that do? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 09:06
  #7046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
I believe S/L B was ordered to desist aiding the AAIB. This was done by someone he knew and respected, who gave no apparent reason but made it clear it was a direct order.
flipster is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 09:37
  #7047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
You never comment on Sqn Ldr Burke, because you know that the combination of Burden of Proof and his evidence, blows the Gross Negligence verdict clean out of the water.
dalek is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 09:49
  #7048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

The contradiction between 7127 and 7128 is too obvious to deserve comment. Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 09:55
  #7049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Contradiction? Are you "on" something.
dalek is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 18:24
  #7050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
JP
I have to say I see no contradiction - kindly explain.

MB
meadowbank is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 18:44
  #7051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Why on earth would anyone order S/L Burke to stop helping the AAIB, surely finding the truth is the main thrust of an investigation
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 19:53
  #7052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Meadowbank. See 7127 'ordered to desist (in giving evidence) and 7128 'his evidence' JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2010, 20:49
  #7053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
JP

Do keep up. Sqn Ldr Burke was prevented from giving evidence to the BOI, allowing W&D to impose their iniquitous overriding of the BOI's findings. The cabal of stars has been unable to prevent this evidence subsequently becoming public. No contradiction whatsoever.

Let us see what the independant forthcoming enquiry concludes; it is difficult to see how it could differ from every other subsequent investigation (e.g. the HOL hearing).

Whether those responsible for the debacle which characterised the airworthiness issues will ever issue the grovelling apology required remains to be seen, it appears so far they have no sense of shame.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2010, 09:39
  #7054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
JP,
Your last post. Just what point are you trying to make? Where is there any contradiction between my post and that of Flipsters?
dalek is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2010, 09:54
  #7055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
dalek,

I think that JP sees a contradiction in the fact that S/L Burke was ordered not to give evidence at the BOI. He appears to have felt free of that restriction at the the much later time of the HoL inquiry. So his evidence is in the public domain and there is no contradiction.
Yet another barrister type trick from JP in an attempt to weaken his opponents case, methinks.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2010, 11:03
  #7056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 307
I will not be allowed to reply. CPLS was fitted the day the a/ c arrived in Aldrgrove.
Sqn Ldr Burke did express his opinion the a/c should not be flown.
Regards.
Winch-control is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2010, 18:44
  #7057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Before we get bogged down all over again, I would like to draw your attention to a statement, published by ACM Wratten on 15 Jun 2000, in which he attempts to defend the findings made by AM Day, which were subsequently endorsed by Wratten himself.

Wratten states:
without the irrefutable evidence of an ADR and a CVR, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact
I suggest that there is therefore doubt, even in his own mind, as to what occurred, and this opinion is strengthened by another sentence within the same statement:
Why they therefore elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.
Given that the standard of proof required to find deceased aircrew 'Negligent' is, as we know, "beyond any doubt whatsoever", and that Wratten himself, in these two example instances, voices his opinion that there is doubt, Lord Philip can only come to one conclusion - that the verdicts of 'Gross Negligence' must be quashed.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2010, 19:59
  #7058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
You don't have to rely on niceties, decent analysis cuts down so many points of their arguments – for one example, remember the “inappropriate rate of climb” bit?:
I fine it strange that not one of you aviators shot that down in flames very simply;
ever watched hang-gliders?;
taking even the most conservative value for the wind on the slopes, the upward vertical component of that wind accounts easily for the height gain between the last altitude update and the point of impact;
there was no rate of climb appropriate for a cruise climb – there was no rate of climb at all;
this ties in with the engines at a matched intermediate power and the calculated reduction in airspeed over the last leg;
they were coasting in and yet were utterly surprised by their proximity to the ground.
Just one point.
The whole truth is attainable – but needs an attitude change to get there.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 07:54
  #7059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Walter has always been spot on with his last point.

A 15 to 25 kt tailwind striking a cliff face will cause compression and updraft.
This will give an increase of speed and also considerable updraft causing a high ROC.
It will also generate vortices creating moderate to severe turbulence, plus local downdraughts within the general updraft.
This makes all analysis/ simulation and even flights trying to match the exact conditions all speculative.
dalek is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2010, 08:07
  #7060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Not sure I agree with you, Dalek.

The whole truth can never be attainable, since primary evidence is absent.

The facts are therefore a matter of interpretation, and some speculations are more plausible than others. Plausible is of course a matter of personal preference.
Fitter2 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.