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 1st Dec 2010, 07:49
  #7121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
the "Airworthiness" problem is totally to blame. That I cannot let go by.

Has anyone claimed this? Don't think so.

What I cannot let go by is that the very people who insist they know what happened beyond any doubt whatsoever, and write to the press saying so, are essentially the same people who knew the aircraft was non-compliant.

Now remind me, when were the CA Release trials due to commence on a Mk2 at a representative build standard. Answer - When MoD supplied a suitable aircraft along with mandated baseline design information. On 2nd June 1994 they had not yet done so. Why, then, was an RTS issued in Nov 93 giving aircrew the false impression this work had progressed satisfactorily?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 08:21
  #7122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Do you believe some Yachtie or some qualified Met chap

Baston,
If you do wish to be treated seriously please do some research before you post.
Take a look at the many photographs (posted mainly by Walter).
The qualified Met Chap was on top of the 300ft cliff in a fogbank.
The yachtie was two miles away, at sea level, in clear air. They were both honorable men giving their best estimates of the weather, and there is no confliction in their evidence.

I notice you have no answer to my question on inadequate planning. You just ignore it and change the subject.

Your amazing abilities at DR navigation have been discussed before on this thread.

I know of nobody on this thread who claims that Airworthiness or the incidents reported by Burke were the cause of this accident. They simply have never been ruled out as a cause. Hence failure in the Burden of Proof.

Any answers on why the Planning was bad or where the Airmanship was poor?
dalek is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 08:47
  #7123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
bastOn, to AA you said:
Logical argument seems to get you into a hissy fit.
That's just a little rich isn't it?

Most of us here are prepared to argue our cases, and highlight the weaknesses in what little 'hard' evidence exists.

You on the other hand simply have a dogged opinion. Based on what??? Expertise in DR? Most of your contributions here are terse digs revealing little cerebral activity. I wonder how much you really do know about this case?

You are entirely entitled to your 'opinion', as are we all.

Because matters of opinion are NOT matters of fact! But 2 individuals should not be required to endure the opprobrium for this tragedy simply on the basis of someone's opinion!!

Establishing a position by logical argument is rather more difficult I grant you, but many here have done so. Lord Philip will soon join us, along with all the previous independent reviewers of this case. Of that I have no doubt!

Indulge your childish 'crab bating' elsewhere. People died, grow up! This is not a lightweight debate. Discuss the evidence, (if you are aware of the detail!) or be taken for a cerebrally challenged troll!

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Dec 2010 at 09:10.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 09:09
  #7124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thank you all for your opinions! Much enjoyed.

Dalek - on planning I was thinking ofthe fact that they were apparently unhappy with te aircraft rather than the bare bones of the actual sortie planning, sorry.

I am also of the opinion as a bit of a pragmatist that to believe that this aircraft flew quite happily across the sea and then somehow a fault - undisclosed - hurled it into the hillside is not believable at any level.

Sorry if this annoys the Troll hunters........................

ps Pragmatism - those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that impractical ideas are to be rejected.

Ducking now......................
bast0n is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 09:14
  #7125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
dalek

1. When you quote the Lighthouse Keeper which one do you mean? The Keeper at the Lighthouse stated the visibility was "15 to 20 metres at most" whilst the Keeper returning from Campbeltown estimated the visibility as "10 metres or less" as he drove over the Hill. Both Keepers were Met Observers who routinely took Met Observations as part of their duties.

2. Seven other witnesses gave evidence on oath as to the weather conditions at the time of the crash. In this context it is worth remembering that the Yachtsman was not aware of the crash until some hours later.

3; The first recorded Military aircraft crash on the Mull was an AW Whitley in 1941. Since that time there have been 19 further accidents and over 120 lives have been lost.

Last edited by cazatou; 1st Dec 2010 at 10:58.
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 11:27
  #7126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
caz, if that hillside had been bestrewn with met observers (is there a collective for them?) I would readily accept their evidence as to how far they thought they could see. I am just as prepared to accept the evidence of those who were out at sea, that the visibility there was dramatically different, even though it was still "in the vicinity of the Mull"! Why can't you?
To be honest I now find your continual promotion of the former in contrast to the latter disingenuous to say the least. You purport to be an ex A cat VIP pilot and an ex Flight Safety Staff Officer. I can only say that recent posts belie that, though I am prepared to accept that the agenda has got in the way. In that regard a word to the wise. This thread has moved completely from the outraged, "Are you suggesting that honourable Air Rank Officers would conspire to unjustly besmirch the reputations of two deceased junior officers to cover up an alleged scandal concerning the organised suborning of Military Airworthiness?". The short answer to that is yes, and I suspect that many that post here have become so persuaded, albeit very reluctantly. Perhaps you too might reconsider your position, but that of course is up to you. Your credibility though is up to others. This one is not greatly convinced of it.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 11:58
  #7127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Caz,
Quite happy with the evidence of all the observers on the Mull.
What is your point?
dalek is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:00
  #7128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
Airborne Aircrew

You may well "live near a Chinook Base" but you seem to have little, if any, idea of how the noise signatures of such aircraft are affected by terrain.

You have cast aspersions in respect of the evidence of Mr Ellacott, yet he was on high rocky ground with the Chinook hundreds of feet below his Elevation and with millions of tons of rock between them. In such circumstances the noise of the Chinook would be absorbed or deflected and Mr Ellacott was only made aware of the Chinook once it had reached an altitude where the sound waves were not absorbed or deflected; hence his statement "I heard the sound of a propellor going around for about four or five seconds and then I heard an explosion."

The aircraft was erect, rolled slightly left and pitched approximately 30 degrees nose-up and with a groundspeed of approx 150 kts when it impacted at a height of 810 ft AMSL - [B]still 594 ft below the summit of Beinn na Lice[/B ]. This was consistent with an attempted escape manoeuvre.

150 kts equates to 253 ft/sec and Mr Ellacott stated " Visibility at this time was 9ft or 10 ft maximum" ---- it was difficult to say how far I was from the point of the explosion, but I don't think I could have been more than 100 yards."
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:12
  #7129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
dalek

All the observers on the Mull heard (and in some cases felt) the crash. Thus, their recollections are linked to that instant in time. The Yachtsman was not aware of the tragedy until several hours later; thus his recollections are not linked specifically to that instant in time.
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:14
  #7130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
But he did see the aircraft below the cloud.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:17
  #7131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

But he did see the aircraft below the cloud.
Big difference between looking up at an aircraft and slant and horizontal viz from the cockpit...............................
bast0n is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:26
  #7132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
thus his recollections are not linked specifically to that instant in time.
Surely his recollections are linked to the time the aircraft passed him, 2 miles away from the accident. This is actually close to the point where Wratten says gross negligence was evident.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 13:10
  #7133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Caz:

Put the shovel down...

I first travelled on a Chinook in about 1981. I then encountered them as a Rock on numerous occasions on almost all the training areas in the UK and northern Germany. I have heard them approaching and receding on the rolling hills of SPTA, the flat areas of STANTA and in the mountains/large hills of north Yorkshire, Otterburn etc. I then lived on the same station as 7 Squadron for 3 years and operated alongside them as a Puma crewman all over the UK and northern Germany including the mountains around Gairlochhead for example. All in all I spent nearly ten years in constant and close contact with them in almost every environment northern Europe has to offer. I'm sure you saw one at some random airshow...

My point: Simple. Your devious attempt to change your statements regarding the evidence given by Mr. Ellacott falls flat on it's face when you claim that he would not have heard it until it was 1000' feet away because, clearly, you are unfamiliar with the noise signature of a Chinook. Your credibility took a nosedive when you tried that little stunt. It only digs itself deeper as you flounder around claiming the cliffs would mute and absorb the sound.

You have cast aspersions in respect of the evidence of Mr Ellacott
No Caz. I have caught you trying to reinterpret the evidence he gave in order to try to defend your position when it was pointed out you were wrong. At least have the courage to admit it...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 13:27
  #7134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

"Are you suggesting that honourable Air Rank Officers would conspire to unjustly besmirch the reputations of two deceased junior officers to cover up an alleged scandal concerning the organised suborning of Military Airworthiness?". The short answer to that is yes," ... says Chugalug2.
We have been here before, but can you now give an assurance that you have put your evidence for this most serious crime in front of Lord Philip's Inquiry?
JP

Last edited by John Purdey; 1st Dec 2010 at 13:42. Reason: punctuation
John Purdey is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 13:57
  #7135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Cazatou,
All the observers on the Mull can simlpy confirm that the aircraft crashed into the ground at at the time was either in, or in the VICINITY (good word that) of a cloudbank. They never saw it crash. We know the aircraft hit the ground there was a big hole to prove it. Just where does it advance the cause of Negligence? How and why did the aircraft get there?

Wratten claims that negligence had taken place by Waypoint Change. If we can disprove that then his case is blown out of the water.

You have twisted and turned in the past but the basic facts are.

1. Holbrook could see the lighthouse area and the aircraft.
2. His average reported vis was one to two nms.
3. When he saw it the aircraft was clear of cloud and in sight of the sea.
4. They were VMC

We can never say for sure, as you say, we wern't there. However it is not unreasonable to assume that the aircraft would also pick out the lighthouse area.

"Flying to fast for the conditions"

Both Holbrook and the RACAL analysis have them flying slower than the average D/T speed for the whole route.

So justify negligence at Waypoint change? Everything afterwards is speculation

Negligence / Aircrew Error / FADEC / UFCM. Do take your pick. There is insufficient evidence for any these possibilities,
dalek is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 14:02
  #7136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom



Big difference between looking up at an aircraft and slant and horizontal viz from the cockpit...............................
Almost the same sort of difference as rather stupidly subscribing to the mantra that because those on the mull were in less than 10 meters vis the Chinook must be experiencing the same.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 14:11
  #7137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by John Purdey View Post
"Are you suggesting that honourable Air Rank Officers would conspire to unjustly besmirch the reputations of two deceased junior officers to cover up an alleged scandal concerning the organised suborning of Military Airworthiness?". The short answer to that is yes," ... says Chugalug2.
We have been here before, but can you now give an assurance that you have put your evidence for this most serious crime in front of Lord Philip's Inquiry?
JP
JP,

Sir, I suspect Lord Philip was selected for his ability to get right to the heart of this sad sorry tale and in doing so expose those responsible, which it would seem is causing some angst
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 14:34
  #7138 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Originally Posted by JP
put your evidence for this most serious crime in front of Lord Philip's Inquiry
- from what I gather, that has already been done.

To the rest, it is apparent we have some mental instability among some posters. I suggest there is little merit in trying to argue logic with them about the 'weather', 'cloud in the vicinity' and 'visibility' etc. It goes nowhere.
BOAC is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 15:18
  #7139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
cazatou (K52)
150 kts equates to 253 ft/sec and Mr Ellacott stated " Visibility at this time was 9ft or 10 ft maximum"
The thing I can't understand is that if visibility was "9 or 10ft maximum", and they were travelling at "253 ft/sec", how could any manouvre possibly be described as an "attempted escape?"

If reports of the visibility are accurate, the crew could not possibly have seen anything to react to??

Or are you postulating they were responding to the rad alt??

Or something else??
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 15:23
  #7140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Are you suggesting that honourable Air Rank Officers would conspire to unjustly besmirch the reputations of two deceased junior officers to cover up an alleged scandal concerning the organised suborning of Military Airworthiness?
Conspire – To plan together to commit a harmful / wrongful act.

Cover Up – Attempt to conceal wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information.

Many thanks to the current junior MoD staffs who did their duty by providing the written evidence under FoI, despite numerous previous staffs (the together bit) denying its existence (the conceal bit).

And congratulations to the other (more senior) staffs who continued to deny the existence of the evidence, just as it was popping through the letter box. That really did bring a smile to our faces. Excellent confirmation of what JP is saying. That’s the trouble with conspiring to cover up – it involves lying and it is always easier to tell the truth, because eventually someone will insist on it and spoil the plan.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the culprits will be interviewed by Lord Philip. After all, they weren’t interviewed by Haddon-Cave; but he still got the basic facts right.



By the way JP, there is debate at to whether or not this a "serious offence". The RAF and Ministers say no (but they are just judging their own cases). The Civil Service Code says yes. We're hoping the Cabinet Secretary and Civil Service Commissioners will take a close look. You and I agree on one thing, I'm glad to say!
tucumseh 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.