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 29th Nov 2010, 21:35
  #7081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 63
Posts: 462
Tuc

That's a most telling point.

At the subsequent Court Martial, the QC for the surviving pilot accused of gross negligence says "Gentlemen, I will demonstrate that at the time of the occurence the aircraft was not airworthy." He proceeds to do so, using the lines of argument you and others here have so painstakingly brought out.

Verdict?

Sven
Sven Sixtoo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 22:00
  #7082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
John Purdey

I'm afraid that last post has lowered the tone of an otherwise friendly discussion of a crucial point. Was it something I said?

Do you believe the Air Staffs and others I mentioned were correct or within their rights to ignore the regulations they were bound by? That they did so is beyond doubt, and even MoD have provided the necessary evidence. As I said, I'd like to hear their reasoning.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 22:25
  #7083 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Tuc. Do I take it from your "My opinion is that the responsibility you mention remains with the crew so long as the airworthiness chain is intact" .... means that if the a/c was not airworthy, then the crew were free to ignore the rules of airmanship? Or,? JP
JP: If the crew were in control of the aircraft at the time it entered IMC, (and the last observer to see them before the crash indicates they were at that time in VMC) then they bear a major responsibilty (although due to the criminal lack of airworthiness they may not have been in the position where the aircraft systems led them to believe).

If they were not in control due to one of the many problems demonstrated in testing, on an aircraft described as dangerous by Boscombe Down, then the responsibility lies solely on those who signed documents clearing it for service, and I hope they are publicly shamed.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 22:50
  #7084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
JP The rules that were broken were the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations, and they were broken long before 2nd June 1994. As tuc reminds us Air Marshals' "form" in that regard can be traced back as far as 1987. That is the focus of attention now, not the alleged breaking of "the Rules of Airmanship".
BTW JP could you please point me to the "Rules of Airmanship". I always thought that airmanship was a philosophy of best aviation practice rather than a set of prescribed rules like....well the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations for example.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 23:22
  #7085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Caz:

Airborne Aircrew

Chapter and Verse please on how I "altered the evidence". The completed BOI was waiting on my desk when I arrived at HQ 1 Gp. I would have to have altered not only those copies at HQ 1 Gp but also those at HQ STC, MODPE and MOD - a total of around 40 copies. I did not hold an Entry Pass for any of those other Establishments.

Of course you could always justify or apologise for your statement - but I won't hold my breath.
Go back and read what I wrote here. You gave two different interpretations of the same evidence in order to preserve your failing position. Specifically, in one post you stated the aircraft passed over him and the 4-5 seconds began then but, after I questioned you, you stated the aircraft would have been 1000' feet from him when that period began. As SFFP pointed out that is quite preposterous for anyone with any experience of even being close to Chinooks - I live close to an ANG base and I can hear the Chinooks coming at least half a mile away while I'm indoors... and I'm old and deaf now...

Your level of integrity is, unsurprisingly, lacking. Your most recent attempt to obfuscate is also no surprise. To try to twist my post into accusing you of altering the original evidence of the BOI rather than changing your own words within this thread in order to bolster your position is quite telling and, to be honest, bordering on pathetic in any debate.

You can breathe now... Just keep your indignation to yourself. I, like many others, see you for what you are...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 08:00
  #7086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Precluded Flight In Accordance With Vfr

Caz,
You pluck this statement completely out of context and quote it as if it were Holy Writ. And try defining VICINITY in the context of this accident. One mile, five, ten?

If the flight could not be completed without entry into IFR in the VICINITY of the Mull then the whole planning proceedure was wrong. The crew and the Authorising Officer got it wrong before departure.

Isn't it amazing that the BOI, Reviewing Officers, FAI, PAC, and HOL all failed to spot this glaring error.

The point is all of these bodies / individuals accepted the true intentions of the crew. To identify the Mull while VMC out to sea, to follow the coastline to the Great Glen, fly VMC up the Great Glen, identify Fort George turn right and land.

There was nothing in the Forecast that says this was not possible.

You are correct that neither of us was there, but the conditions at the lighthouse were irrelevant, since the crew intended to turn before they got there.

Mr Hollbrook was there. He puts the aircraft in VMC at sensible height and speed and in a good position to execute the plan in VFR. Any negligence / error / technical malfunction happened (almost certainly) after that sighting
dalek is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 08:20
  #7087 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
And try defining VICINITY in the context of this accident. One mile, five, ten?
- dalek - I asked the same in #7144. In fact the word is nebulous and cannot be 'defined' as such and therefore has no meaning in the context of this accident, and should have been struck from the findings.

Gentlemen - let us not be dragged into irrelevancies by those who either stand to be found implicated by Lord Philip or who support the same people. This discussion is getting us nowhere. Some posters have no idea of what MSA/VFR/low-level ops/weather avoidance means in practice and the same old guff keeps on coming back.

Anyone posted a date for Lord Philip's enquiry start and findings ?
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 09:29
  #7088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Lord Philip's inquiry has been underway for sometime. I know they have all flown in a chinook around the Mull some weeks ago. Coincidentally in rather poor weather!

Result expected around the middle of next year I believe.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 09:47
  #7089 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Thanks TR - I knew it had started, but not when, and summer/11 fits with what I have been given and like others I suspect the end date will slip.

I understand there has been some interesting stuff submitted and one has to hope that the H-C enquiry will point the way. I gather his list of people 'to interview' is substantial. I expect the wagons will be formed in a defensive circle and I hope the Indians can break through.

It will, like H-C, all be too late to save those who have been killed or injured as a result of what appears to be at best lack of care at high level, but one has to hope, again like H-C, that our forces will get a better deal in terms of 'care' out of it.

I remain sure, however, that in terms of this campaign, right will prevail.
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 10:35
  #7090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 307
It was a really accurate reconstruction (not) in a Mk3, not a Mk2 albeit the similarity with dubious release to service and dubious procedures do ring a bell on the familarity front..... again the weather is a red herring (but that is only my opinion) Look at the release to servive for the Mk3.....
Winch-control is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 11:48
  #7091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
BOAC

all be too late to save those who have been killed or injured as a result of what appears to be at best lack of care at high level
This would seem to imply that the crew did not have a lot to do with it. I am sure you don't mean that do you?

If everyone, including the crew, were so unhappy with the aircraft it would seem to me that they should have been super careful in the terrain and met conditions surrounding this trip.I know I would have been.

Much is made of the airworthiness issues in this thread, and of course they are worth pursuing, but at the end of the day two chaps were strapped into this beast and bear the responsibility for the end result.

Gross negligence? As I have stated before I don't think so - but major cockup - yes.

Last edited by bast0n; 30th Nov 2010 at 11:49. Reason: Grammar
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 11:57
  #7092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
they should have been super careful in the terrain and met conditions surrounding this trip.I know I would have been.
Where is your indisputable evidence they were not??

two chaps were strapped into this beast and bear the responsibility for the end result.
I fear you are putting the cart before the horse!

If the accident was not their 'fault', how could they "bear the responsibility"? I remind you that numerous independent reviews have failed to discover any such 'fault'!

I feel confident that as a judge, Lord Philip will have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, which comes first; the cart or the horse!

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 30th Nov 2010 at 12:09.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 12:01
  #7093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
BOAC




Gross negligence? As I have stated before I don't think so - but possible major cockup - yes.
But only a major cock up if the aircraft was fully servicable or the weather was as has been suggested at the time of the crash.

As neither of those points can be conclusively proved one way or the other then whatever anyone suggests can only ever be a possibility.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 13:25
  #7094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Much is made of the airworthiness issues in this thread, and of course they are worth pursuing, but at the end of the day two chaps were strapped into this beast and bear the responsibility for the end result.
To paraphrase previous posts, for the chaps to be strapped in, the aircraft had to be declared airworthy in the first place. If it was not airworthy, then how on earth can the pilots be deemed wholly responsible for the end result?

This line of argument, like Mr Purdey's, seems to assume that airworthiness, or parts thereof, are optional. Is there no understanding that airworthiness facilitates serviceability and fitness for purpose, as you always need a stable baseline from which to form judgements? In the case of the Mk2 this baseline was a statement by Boscombe Down that the aircraft was not airworthy, accompanied by a raft of valid reasons supported by top level policy statements.

It is facile to say the pilots are ultimately responsible for airworthiness of their aircraft. The decision to fly was based on a false premise. That is, the RTS gave RAF users the false impression the regulations had been implemented properly. At a working level, the decision may be taken to fly with acceptable faults. But the baseline for this decision is the statement (through the RTS) that the aircraft is airworthy at a known build standard and that (ZD576) was at that build standard, or deviations from it were known and the effect understood. Pilots place an enormous trust in their masters to get this bit right – failure to do so is to abrogate Duty of Care because it denies the pilots the ability to make an informed decision.

The MoD’s argument is that, even if the aircraft developed a catastrophic fault just before impact, the negligence had been committed beforehand (at WP A acceptance). This establishes their insistence that prior negligence over-rides later acts or events (which I don’t think holds good in law). But they cannot have it both ways. There is clear evidence of previous prior negligence, in that ACAS issued an RTS that did not reflect Boscombe’s recommendations, and withheld vital information from aircrew. Had that information been available, perhaps the pilots wouldn’t need to have asked for a Mk1 to be retained; their superiors may have challenged the very existence of a Mk2 in service, never mind in theatre.

In my view, what exonerates the pilots is the failure to disseminate these warnings to aircrew. One of Lord Philip's tasks must be to find out where in the chain of command (and airworthiness chain) this dissemination stopped.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 13:32
  #7095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

But only a major cock up if the aircraft was fully servicable or the weather was as has been suggested at the time of the crash.
An aircraft does not have to be fully serviceable to be perfectly safe if flown within it's limitations. A good dose of looking at the A700 and application of nervousness brought on by the rumour/experience mill would be a good starting point for the days task.

At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably. I believe that the aircraft shortcomings - all indisputably unproven by all the posts above - are a sideline to the lack of planning and airmanship shown on the day.
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 13:40
  #7096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
application of nervousness brought on by the rumour/experience mill would be a good starting point for the days task.
If that is to be the basis of aviation safety, then the MAA can pack its bags now. Boscombe can be shut. Delete all system integration, testing and trials from all contracts. Simplify the airworthiness regulations to "It's all optional chaps, bin the regs, the aircrew are guilty".
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 13:48
  #7097 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Baston,
Every aircraft that crashes flies into rock or water. Not all Pilots / Aircrew on these aircraft are guilty of negligence, or aircrew error either.
So what is your point?
dalek is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 14:01
  #7098 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

TUC. I have never believed airworthiness to be optional. My point was and is that even if an aircraft turns out to be unairworthy, that fact does not diminish the responsibilities of the crew. Is that so difficult to follow? John Purdey.
John Purdey is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 14:23
  #7099 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
John Purdey

You clearly don't understand, or want to consider, the law pertaining to prior negligence and shared cuplability if both parties were negligent. It is not difficult to understand but I can see certain former senior officers would want to give this area a bodyswerve. One hopes Lord Philip doesn't bow to their pressure.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 14:33
  #7100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Tuc

If that is to be the basis of aviation safety, then the MAA can pack its bags now. Boscombe can be shut. Delete all system integration, testing and trials from all contracts. Simplify the airworthiness regulations to "It's all optional chaps, bin the regs, the aircrew are guilty".
Of course it is not - and I am sure you do not mean what you state in such a simplistic way.

Before every trip one should evaluate all the potential pitfalls and plan to avoid them. If you know the aircraft has a problem either refuse to fly it or work within its limits. Used to be known as common sense and good flight planning. Put those in order of importance if you will.

Have things changed so much that every trip has to be authorised by Boscombe - God bless em - they certainly, from personal experience, do not have a total grasp of airworthiness and all its ramifications further down the line.

Flying safely has so much to do with the day to day ins and outs of all the factors mentioned in all the posts above - but at the end of the day it is down to the pilots.
bast0n 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.