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, 20:46
  #7161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by tucumseh View Post
Beagle

It was AMSO policy from 1988-on to withhold funding for those aspects of airworthiness I mention.
Do you have a link to the names of these folk or would it be best to wait for Lord Philip to expose them?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 21:08
  #7162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Cows getting bigger

Please forgive me, but the name is Cook. No french letter!
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 21:28
  #7163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Seldom

Sorry, no link. To the best of my knowledge the individuals I dealt with directly have not put their names in the public domain; although they are known. Haddon-Cave was given the same information and, as I said, apparently didn't interview them but simply noted the effect in his conclusions.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 23:23
  #7164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: SW England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,243
Cows Getting Bigger has given us an appropriate reminder of what Brian and others are striving to achieve.

So now I'm going to crave the indulgence of the forum to ask a question of Bast0n, if I may:

Baston:

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.
back in 2006 I wrote the following comment in this thread :

talking about a B205A pilot whose tail-rotor pitch link had failed in flight, giving him the equivalent of around 200%+ full-right pedal
...had the same malfunction just as he was positioning a 205A to pick up an underslung load at Saiq in Oman (6300 ft amsl, temp at that time of year around 20 degrees). I gather he rolled the throttle shut and landed right next to the USL on the other side from the Jebel VOR who was waiting to hook-up. Don't know how many rotations the aircraft made, but the aircraft landed level and was completely undamaged. Top bit of flying.

It gave me pause for thought, as only the day before I'd been flying the same aircraft for the artillery cadets at Izki. Usual stuff - load the aircraft up full, quick circuit to make sure they're all happy then off at low level (SOAF version) across the bundu to give them their moneysworth. If that same malfunction had occurred just a few flying-hours earlier, would anyone have bothered to look for the pitch-change link in the wreckage or would it have just gone down as yet another low-flying-pilot-cocks-it-up-bigtime? It didn't stop me from operating at low altitude, but I spent a great deal more attention going through the "what-ifs" when doing so...
I take it from your quote that you would not have believed (at any level) a pitch-link failure could have occurred had I crashed the previous day? Not when there's a convenient pilot to blame it on?
Thud_and_Blunder is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 07:52
  #7165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Tandem - apologies. Amended.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 10:16
  #7166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thud and Blunder

I quite see where you are coming from, but are you saying had you crashed it, no investigation would have been carried out and the broken pitch link not found? I do hope not. If however your aircraft had flown slap bang into the side of the valley in mist and no evidence of mechanical failure was subsequently found you would probably be in the frame for a bit of investigation!

I think that most of us have flown aircraft that have had a major/catostrophic failure shortly after we had flown it. I recall the whole tail rotor pylon of a Wessex V that fell off onto the flight deck as the tail was being folded after it had landed on!

I would not have blamed the pilot then nor you after all the available evidence had come to light.

I am certain that many posters in this tragic case are undervaluing the airmanship aspects of the accident.
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 11:56
  #7167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Baston. You are right. It is easier to bash the heirachy than to study the airmanship errors. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 12:06
  #7168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The sarf coast
Posts: 47
Excuse a mere ex-ATCer and long time lurker dipping a toe in here but...

JP some may say:

It was easier to bash the airmen than to study the heirarchy

Hopefully the latest review will study both the airmanship and the heirarchy with appropriate 'blame' being laid where it belongs.

Back to lurking
short&shapeless is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 13:29
  #7169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
JP,
Do you mean the "Flying to fast for the Conditions" at Waypoint change, or some other Airmanship errors? Please enlighten us. I do notice that Baston couldn't.
dalek is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 13:53
  #7170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Thud and Blunder

I quite see where you are coming from, but are you saying had you crashed it, no investigation would have been carried out and the broken pitch link not found?

What if it had not been a mechanical failure but was down to a software issue and was untraceable, gross negligence?

I am certain that many posters in this tragic case are undervaluing the airmanship aspects of the accident.
I am certain that one or two posters in this tragic case are undervaluing the potential mechanical/electrical failure aspects of this accident.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 13:55
  #7171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Dear old Dalek

Go back a few hundred posts and read all the airmanship issues that were discussed at length ages ago.

Remember now..................................?
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 13:56
  #7172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

S&S. Let us hope so. If there were failings in the heirachy then they should be exposed-no argument. My point is that most of the pruners here have banged on about airworthiness and heirarchical failings, while chosing to ignore the blatant failings in airmanship.

Dalek. I mean that the a/c pressed on into what were certainly IMC conditions and did so well below safety altitude. Is that really so difficult to hoist on board? Regards to all courteous contributers. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:30
  #7173 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Originally Posted by JP
the blatant failings in airmanship.
- I trust you have already placed the indisputable evidence you have for what was happening in the cockpit before Lord Philip - or will you wait until called?
BOAC is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:30
  #7174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by John Purdey View Post
S&S. My point is that most of the pruners here have banged on about airworthiness and heirarchical failings, while chosing to ignore the blatant failings in airmanship.

What utter utter utter twaddle and I doubt you will find anyone on here and I mean anyone who does not accept that there is a pretty good chance the guys got it wrong on that day. Trouble is pretty good chance does not cut the mustard with regards to the judgment made.

Dalek. I mean that the a/c pressed on into what were certainly IMC conditions and did so well below safety altitude. Is that really so difficult to hoist on board? Regards to all courteous contributers. JP

And is it really so damnably difficult for you to accept that without an eye witness we will never know for sure if the aircraft ever went IMC at all
I challenged you on here before JP as to what the crew could see from the flight deck windows and you freely admitted you have absolutely no idea so I am uncertain as to why you have changed tack with your "pressed on into what were certainly IMC condition" notion.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:43
  #7175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

And is it really so damnably difficult for you to accept that without an eye witness we will never know for sure if the aircraft ever went IMC at all
Bit careless at least then to fly into the hillside if they were VMC? Or is is the magic bullet of the "perhaps" problem with the aircraft that hurled them into the ground?
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:49
  #7176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom



Bit careless at least then to fly into the hillside if they were VMC? Or is is the magic bullet of the "perhaps" problem with the aircraft that hurled them into the ground?
Please feel free to tell me Bas because unlike you I don't know what actually happened
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:50
  #7177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Seldom. My remarks were addressed to the courteous pruners, as I said. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:39
  #7178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Sir,

Thats why I replied.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:49
  #7179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
SFFP

Your assertion that without an eyewitness we will never know if the Chinook went IMC at all.

Pity you didn't read the Board of Inquiry - with its witness statements in respect of the weather At the time of the crash.

Mr Murchie, lighthouse keeper:" I would estimate the visibility at this stage to be 15 to 20 metres at most."

Mrs Murchie: " went outside to see the helicopter but because of the dense fog we couldn't see it at all. We could hear that it was very,very close and was flying low."

Mr Lamont, lighthouse keeper: "the visibility as I drove over the hill from Campbeltown was down to 10 metres or less.

Mr Brocher: " The weather was really bad at this time, there was a lot of mist and fog, visibility was only about 10 or 15 ft .... I could not see it (the Chinook) for the mist and fog.

There are several others
cazatou is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:53
  #7180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
cazatou

But none of the witnesses you list was actually at the crash site.

I readily accept that they were all, individually, in IMC but that is irrelevant.
Vertico 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.