Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
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.
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".
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.
Baston
Equally, I am sure you did not mean what you said in such a simplistic way.
But as a pilot I'm sure you understand the concept of having to implement formal regulations. In the first instance, attaining airworthiness is Boscombe's primary task.
From that (hopefully, but not in this case) firm baseline, one then moves to the next Chapter in JSP553 and maintains airworthiness, in service. As you say, Boscombe have slightly less input to that - even less given the Services' tendency to ignore the regulations requiring Boscombe to appraise Service Engineered Modifications if airworthiness is affected. The Mk1 had a raft of SEMs. None are mentioned in the Mk2 RTS. What was their status? The regulations say - if they are not mentioned, they have no status whatsoever and there is no authority to use them in any way. That is, the regs require a positive statement of clearance, not an implied one. This is where Chinook Mk2 failed in June 1994, utterly and completely. That is not just my opinion. You simply have to lay the RTS next to the page in JSP553 and compare. They cannot be reconciled - not even remotely close.
But, my point is that one cannot ignore the first and simply dump an unairworthy aircraft (as determined and stated by Boscombe) on the Services, leaving them with no baseline for any subsequent decision of serviceability or fitness for purpose (which is what you rightly talk of). As a pilot (or maintainer), you have to assume this baseline is correct, as you have no influence on what went before. The BoI heard that this stable baseline did not exist.
One must always bear in mind, in this case, the AAIB reported they were unable to test certain components from the wreckage; not because the components were extensively damaged, but because there was no testing information or test facilities - in the same way the FRCs were incomplete. Given that fact (MoD never challenged it because it is self evident), my first question is how did the MoD certify serviceability in the first place? Somewhere along the line there is yet another huge gap in the audit trail. That is a fundamental airworthiness failure.
Equally, I am sure you did not mean what you said in such a simplistic way.
But as a pilot I'm sure you understand the concept of having to implement formal regulations. In the first instance, attaining airworthiness is Boscombe's primary task.
From that (hopefully, but not in this case) firm baseline, one then moves to the next Chapter in JSP553 and maintains airworthiness, in service. As you say, Boscombe have slightly less input to that - even less given the Services' tendency to ignore the regulations requiring Boscombe to appraise Service Engineered Modifications if airworthiness is affected. The Mk1 had a raft of SEMs. None are mentioned in the Mk2 RTS. What was their status? The regulations say - if they are not mentioned, they have no status whatsoever and there is no authority to use them in any way. That is, the regs require a positive statement of clearance, not an implied one. This is where Chinook Mk2 failed in June 1994, utterly and completely. That is not just my opinion. You simply have to lay the RTS next to the page in JSP553 and compare. They cannot be reconciled - not even remotely close.
But, my point is that one cannot ignore the first and simply dump an unairworthy aircraft (as determined and stated by Boscombe) on the Services, leaving them with no baseline for any subsequent decision of serviceability or fitness for purpose (which is what you rightly talk of). As a pilot (or maintainer), you have to assume this baseline is correct, as you have no influence on what went before. The BoI heard that this stable baseline did not exist.
One must always bear in mind, in this case, the AAIB reported they were unable to test certain components from the wreckage; not because the components were extensively damaged, but because there was no testing information or test facilities - in the same way the FRCs were incomplete. Given that fact (MoD never challenged it because it is self evident), my first question is how did the MoD certify serviceability in the first place? Somewhere along the line there is yet another huge gap in the audit trail. That is a fundamental airworthiness failure.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
even if an aircraft turns out to be unairworthy, that fact does not diminish the responsibilities of the crew.
bast0n
At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably.
At the end of the day, this aircraft flew into a rock for reasons unknown, and in precise circumstances unknown, with two pilots in it - indisputably.
Rather different.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
An aircraft does not have to be fully serviceable to be perfectly safe if flown within it's limitations. Totally agree 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. Again in total agreement as it's an ethos I currently teach.
At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably.I am guessing I missed the irrefutable proof from the available evidence that you have to back up that statement 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 dayI am guessing I also missed the irrefutable proof from available evidence that you have to back up that statement.
An aircraft does not have to be fully serviceable to be perfectly safe if flown within it's limitations. Totally agree 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. Again in total agreement as it's an ethos I currently teach.
At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably.I am guessing I missed the irrefutable proof from the available evidence that you have to back up that statement 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 dayI am guessing I also missed the irrefutable proof from available evidence that you have to back up that statement.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
No - and the opposite is also true.
Very little in life can be proved irrefutably and this sad business is just the same.
Yes, well, you can go on looking for fragments of proof or lack of it all day but we can surmise what happened on the balance of probabilities. This is an everyday occurence in courts of law and BOI.
Are you saying, Vertico, that the pilots were just passengers, or do you think that they might have had some input - like accepting an aircraft that they were unhappy with for an important flight, and so on down the line?
Can you tell us if the aircraft was fully serviceable at the time of the crash, as in the final moments prior to the impact?
Very little in life can be proved irrefutably and this sad business is just the same.
At the end of the day, this aircraft flew into a rock for reasons unknown, and in precise circumstances unknown, with two pilots in it - indisputably.
Are you saying, Vertico, that the pilots were just passengers, or do you think that they might have had some input - like accepting an aircraft that they were unhappy with for an important flight, and so on down the line?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bast0n
Are you saying, Vertico, that the pilots were just passengers, or do you think that they might have had some input - like accepting an aircraft that they were unhappy with for an important flight, and so on down the line?
Just to specify two: a UFCM, of which the Chinook seems to have an uncomfortably long history, could have taken the aircraft off in a direction over which they literally had no control. Or a FADEC runaway to either maximum or minimum power could similarly have deprived them of the ability to fly the aircraft in the direction they wished to fly.
I am unable to comment on whether or not the pilots accepted an aircraft that they were unhappy with.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
No - and the opposite is also true. I have never implied otherwise, in fact I have always ofered the notion that as no one actually knows the answer how can the verdict in this case still stand
Very little in life can be proved irrefutably and this sad business is just the same.
square that with
"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably."
No - and the opposite is also true. I have never implied otherwise, in fact I have always ofered the notion that as no one actually knows the answer how can the verdict in this case still stand
Very little in life can be proved irrefutably and this sad business is just the same.
square that with
"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably."
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
Yes and no!
It would be clearer to say that at the moment of impact it can be assumed that these two pilots were at the controls of the aircraft. Therefore flying it.
I am not arguing for Gross Negligence to be upheld - see my previous posts - but merely stating that on the balance of......................etc etc etc
Can you see why I am confused ?????????
"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably."
how can the verdict in this case still stand
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lack of Planning and Airmanship.
Baston,
1.The detailed planning of the Mission has never been criticised by BOI, Reviewing Officers, HOL etc etc.
2. The last eye witness has the aircraft in VMC, safe height and speed, flying on the route they were authorised to fly.
Apart from hitting the ground, which happens in all crashes, what was wrong with the Planning and Airmanship.
1.The detailed planning of the Mission has never been criticised by BOI, Reviewing Officers, HOL etc etc.
2. The last eye witness has the aircraft in VMC, safe height and speed, flying on the route they were authorised to fly.
Apart from hitting the ground, which happens in all crashes, what was wrong with the Planning and Airmanship.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn ; Post 7187 et al
Quote: "on the balance of probabilities"
That is the level of proof for a civil action.
For a criminal case, and I think the BoI and its findings are equivalent to a criminal case, the evidence has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt".
I think it highly likely that this point has been made before on this thread.
That is the level of proof for a civil action.
For a criminal case, and I think the BoI and its findings are equivalent to a criminal case, the evidence has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt".
I think it highly likely that this point has been made before on this thread.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well, you can go on looking for fragments of proof or lack of it all day but we can surmise what happened on the balance of probabilities. This is an everyday occurence in courts of law and BOI.
A balance of probability is used in civil cases. Of course it was also the standard used by Sheriff Sir Steven Young in the original FAI held at Stirling in 1995. You will recall he made no criticism whatsoever of the two pilots, even based on such a loose standard, since he found no evidence which satisfied that standard.
A higher standard of proof used in the most serious criminal cases, would of course be 'beyond reasonable doubt', but not even this standard would have been sufficient for the reviewing officer's position.
Since the aircrew were no longer able to defend themselves (not even by voice or data recordings!) the standard of proof required to find them negligent was that of 'absolutely no doubt WHATSOEVER!'
It is my strong belief that this required standard of proof, is utterly in accordance with both natural justice, AND in the highest traditions of our armed services!
This standard was blatantly ignored in this case.
Let right be done.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It says here that indisputable means
Beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable
So forgive me for laboring the point but if based on the available evidence the best you can manage is an assumption then surely
"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably."
should actually read
"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - I assume."
Or am I missing something here
Seldom
Yes - they did.
Yes - they did.
It is undisputed that they were at the controls. Whether the aircraft was responding correctly to the control inputs is unsupported by any evidence (and the contrary is also unsupported - there is simply no evidence).
2 Senior officers decided otherwise, and their motives are open to question.
The lack of airworthiness is not open to question, there is ample evidence to prove otherwise.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
Not rude at all.
No - but I understand from posts previous that they were unhappy with the aircraft but still they flew it. This lays responsibility upon them.
Also, if as I stated more time ago than I care to remember the basics of flying towards a coast in uncertain weather do not seem to have been followed. DR nav/ stopwatch etc etc etc as an adjunct to all the whizzie kit that we did not have. I will not bore you further on that score.
If the weather was as advertised by some posters - but not by those on the scene,(do you believe a yachtie or a qualified met chap?), they clearly did not do a good job of avoiding the rock whilst in VMC.
It seems that some of you seem to think that they were in VMC with engine power matched at cruise settings and flew straight into a rock. I find that view untenable. I think that they did not know where they were for reasons unknown, and plowed on into that treacherous mist/haze where you are in and out of it so often that you keep going in the belief that things will get better and you will soon see what you expect to see.
I have been there and I suspect many of you have.
Not rude at all.
The detailed planning of the Mission has never been criticised by BOI, Reviewing Officers, HOL etc etc.
Also, if as I stated more time ago than I care to remember the basics of flying towards a coast in uncertain weather do not seem to have been followed. DR nav/ stopwatch etc etc etc as an adjunct to all the whizzie kit that we did not have. I will not bore you further on that score.
If the weather was as advertised by some posters - but not by those on the scene,(do you believe a yachtie or a qualified met chap?), they clearly did not do a good job of avoiding the rock whilst in VMC.
It seems that some of you seem to think that they were in VMC with engine power matched at cruise settings and flew straight into a rock. I find that view untenable. I think that they did not know where they were for reasons unknown, and plowed on into that treacherous mist/haze where you are in and out of it so often that you keep going in the belief that things will get better and you will soon see what you expect to see.
I have been there and I suspect many of you have.
Baston
What is your evidence for this? If it merely that the aircraft crashed, then there is none. You seem convinced that you know what the sequence of events was. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please do not dress it up as 'x happened'.
What is certain is that those responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft manifestly failed in their duty.
the basics of flying towards a coast in uncertain weather do not seem to have been followed
What is certain is that those responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft manifestly failed in their duty.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why you are arguing with Baston. He's stated on several occasions that he doesn't agree with the Gross Negligence verdict. He just comes in to stir the pot and watch you all get spitting mad at him... Treat him like a troll...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
How kind....................
Logical argument seems to get you into a hissy fit.
I am merely trying to leaven the bread in the argument that seems to think that these poor chaps were blameless and the "Airworthiness" problem is totally to blame. That I cannot let go by.
Please don't be rude.
Thank you.
Treat him like a troll...
Logical argument seems to get you into a hissy fit.
I am merely trying to leaven the bread in the argument that seems to think that these poor chaps were blameless and the "Airworthiness" problem is totally to blame. That I cannot let go by.
Please don't be rude.
Thank you.