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 30th Nov 2010, 15:02
  #7101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
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.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 15:04
  #7102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
John Purdey

even if an aircraft turns out to be unairworthy, that fact does not diminish the responsibilities of the crew.
If the aircraft was unairworthy (and I put it no more strongly than that) then it is entirely possible that the crew, whilst doing their utmost to discharge their responsibilities, were prevented from so doing by a systems failure/UFCM/FADEC runaway/erroneous position info or one/some of many other possibilities.


bast0n

At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably.
No,sir.

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.
Vertico is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 15:11
  #7103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Vertico
I wish I had put it as simply and clearly as that.
dalek is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 15:59
  #7104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
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.
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?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 16:09
  #7105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

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?
No - and the opposite is also true.

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.
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?
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 16:23
  #7106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
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?
What I was trying to say was that the pilots in the period of minutes immediately before the crash might just as well have been passengers - if one or more of the possible faults which I mentioned had deprived them of control of the aircraft.

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.
Vertico is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 16:34
  #7107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
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."
Can you see why I am confused ?????????
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 16:44
  #7108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

Can you see why I am confused ?????????
Yes and no!

"At the end of the day these two pilots flew this aircraft into a rock - indisputably."
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.

how can the verdict in this case still stand
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
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 17:35
  #7109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
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.
dalek is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 17:53
  #7110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 85
Posts: 74
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.
Goprdon is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 18:17
  #7111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
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.
If we are discussing the standards of proof required, please allow me to inform the debate:

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.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 19:29
  #7112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post

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.
indisputably - definition of indisputably by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

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
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 19:44
  #7113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

Yes - they did.
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 20:08
  #7114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Seldom

Yes - they did.
They did what? Flew the aircraft into a rock? Flew is in that context active, and assumes they were in control.

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.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 20:29
  #7115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom

Yes - they did.
This may appear to be rude but that is not my intention but "they did" what
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 21:07
  #7116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

Not rude at all.

The detailed planning of the Mission has never been criticised by BOI, Reviewing Officers, HOL etc etc.
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.
bast0n is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 21:37
  #7117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
Baston
the basics of flying towards a coast in uncertain weather do not seem to have been followed
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.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 21:55
  #7118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
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...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2010, 22:37
  #7119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
AA

Treat him like a troll...
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.
bast0n is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 01:41
  #7120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Baston:

Weak... Very weak...
Airborne Aircrew 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.