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 2nd Dec 2010, 15:10
  #7181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by cazatou View Post
SFFP


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


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
Caz,

Dead easy question for you Sir,

Can anyone of those witness's tell you, me or anyone else what the actual visibility was 25 meters away from where they were stood at the time of the crash
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:39
  #7182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Vertico

But none of the witnesses you list was actually at the crash site.
Well they wouldn't be here now if they were.......................

How close do they have to be to satisfy you?
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:42
  #7183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Vertico



Well they wouldn't be here now if they were.......................

How close do they have to be to satisfy you?
Close enough to see it I think would quite probably do it, whilst sadly there isn't imagine if there was someone who fell into that category
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:47
  #7184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
sffp

Thanks. You beat me to it!
Vertico is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 15:47
  #7185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

15 to 20 metres at most
10 metres or less.
visibility was only about 10 or 15 ft
They would need to pretty sharpish on their toes if they were to be that close......................
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:03
  #7186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom







They would need to pretty sharpish on their toes if they were to be that close......................
Shame they were not as, I am sure you would agree we would then have the conclusive evidence we currently lack.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:07
  #7187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

Shame they were not as, I am sure you would agree we would then have the conclusive evidence we currently lack.
I think we would have more casualities - but enough of this I think.
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:10
  #7188 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
but enough of this I think.
- oh! If only! Who keeps waking this lot up?

Seems to be a complete lack of 'no doubt what-so-evers' around, don't you think chaps?
BOAC is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:21
  #7189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom



I think we would have more casualities - but enough of this I think.
Not if the aircraft was good Victor Mike and the eye witness's were at a suitable distance, but sadly as there were no eye witness's we will never really know will we
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:53
  #7190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Dear Old Baston,

I too have read all those hundreds of posts on supposed failures in Airmanship. Unlike you I have also understood them.
Let us look at them one at a time:

1. The crew failed to take adequate breakfast. Wrong
2. The crew planned to exceed crew duty. Speculative and irrelevant. They hadn't
3. The crew did not complete all of the planning themselves. True, but the person who assisted was a Navigator qualified for the task. Common practice.
4. The planning was flawed. Really? Why did the BOI, Reviewing Officers and other investigations not crtiticise both Planning and Authorisation.
5. No irregularities reported by ATC or anyone else on departure.
6. Departure radio call made on time.
7. Lastly, and most importantly, the aircraft was reported in VMC at safe height and speed at the very point (According to Wratten) the negligence was being committed.

I may have missed some points so please enlighten as us to where you see the the poor Airmanship or flaws in planning

John Purdey,

As Vertico so rightly pointed out, if the aircraft experienced the type of problems envisaged by Sqn Ldr Burke, the crew may well have been passengers at the scene of the accident.
I have also mentioned many times, the possibility of Visual Illusion and Distraction. Both fairly common incidents. This would make this accident Aircrew Error.
Is that really too difficult to hoist on board.
Regards
dalek is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 16:58
  #7191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Can anyone point me in the direction of any previous/other Gross Negligence finding?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 19:04
  #7192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
I'm unsure why everyone keeps pointing to the three witnesses on the ground who state the vis was only a matter of feet. I can't begin to count the number of times I have hiked in vis measured in metres horizontally yet I can clearly see the sun or the times I have flown over 20-30' layers of fog. Those people on the ground are relevant only as far as the height AGL that the fog/cloud reached. Above that the Chinook could have been in clear air... Sort of like the Yachtsman described... Thus precluding the requirement for IFR and a climb to SA and taking many of the airmanship arguments out of the mix too.

But we'll never know how relevant they are, will we?
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 19:05
  #7193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,520
CGB, I was an FSO at 1Gp,when ,W and D were there; The GFSO was from a land S of the Equator,and had been on the Bucc. fleet. I think the Victor at Hamilton may have been a G-N verdict,but can`t be sure,and the GFSO decided that maybe we should look at previous BoIs that had similar verdicts,but the crew were killed.I think we found there was a Jaguar accident that may have been `shaky`in it`s verdict in the light of other later accidents.As this was `cold-case` stuff,it was not priority,and there was too much other stuff to look at. Ibelieve Caz. was there later,perhaps he may know more..
sycamore is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 19:16
  #7194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Dear old Dalek!!

I like this chumley address!

The airmanship that I refer to is not breakfast/crew duty time/planning/radio calls and so on,and other irrelevant,to me, data.

What I stated many moons ago was what happened once they were airborne.

Simple things like starting a stopwatch on the dashboard as a "run in to coast warning" as a backup to the starwars nav system that I understand they were not too happy with. Gosh if I mention DR backup I will bring lots of modern aviators down on my back again, but I flew the Seaking 4 with Tans and always had a backup running in my mind and on my knee pad. Is that so wrong? It certainly stopped me running into the Caradon Hill mast.

Ploughing on - thumb in bum - in worsening weather/vis/snow/turbulence et all relying on the dodgy black boxes that the crew knew about does not seem to me to be a sensible course of action.

Approaching the coast, as I have stated before, is a high risk business if the weather is starting to turn against you, and that moment when it is turning to ratshit is so very difficult to judge.

I am sorry to admit that I always chickened out early, slowed down, descended, hover taxied et all until I could clearly see the beach/cliff/ship/what have you.

I am still here. Not because I am clever, but like all sensible aviators I am nervous.........................

PS why can we not have a spill and grimmer checker on this sight?

Last edited by bast0n; 2nd Dec 2010 at 19:17. Reason: Grimmer
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 19:29
  #7195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
SFFP

You have neglected one important finding of the AAIB - which was that the Chinook impacted at a speed of approx 150 kts. That equates to slightly greater than 253 ft/sec or approximately 80 metres/sec. The highest estimate of the visibility by those in the vicinity was by Mr Murchie (a Qualified Met Observer) whose estimate was "15 to 20 metres at most". That speed therefore gave them just one quarter of a second to acquire, recognise and attempt to avoid danger.

I must point out, however, that the assessed speed at impact was whilst attempting an apparent escape manoeuvre ; the speed prior to that attempt would of course have been greater.

Whilst it is apparent that a belated escape manoeuvre was attempted, that attempt was to late to prevent impact with the ground.

The Forecast weather for the Mull would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR. The actual weather at the Mull as assessed by 2 qualified Met Observers was distinctly worse than the Forecast. That assessment was reinforced by the evidence of 7 other eye witnesses.
cazatou is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 19:47
  #7196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Dear old Dalek!!

I like this chumley address!

The airmanship that I refer to is not breakfast/crew duty time/planning/radio calls and so on,and other irrelevant,to me, data.

What I stated many moons ago was what happened once they were airborne.

Simple things like starting a stopwatch on the dashboard as a "run in to coast warning" as a backup to the starwars nav system that I understand they were not too happy with.

Have you a shred of evidence to suggest they were not using maps marked with distance and TTG to back up the 252 which was SOP during my time on SH

Gosh if I mention DR backup I will bring lots of modern aviators down on my back again, but I flew the Seaking 4 with Tans and always had a backup running in my mind and on my knee pad. Is that so wrong? It certainly stopped me running into the Caradon Hill mast.

Also SOP along with a Decca map during my early single pilot Puma days

Ploughing on - thumb in bum - in worsening weather/vis/snow/turbulence et all relying on the dodgy black boxes that the crew knew about does not seem to me to be a sensible course of action.

Can you confirm how you know this to be factually correct

Approaching the coast, as I have stated before, is a high risk business if the weather is starting to turn against you, and that moment when it is turning to ratshit is so very difficult to judge.

I am sorry to admit that I always chickened out early, slowed down, descended, hover taxied et all until I could clearly see the beach/cliff/ship/what have you.

It's not called being chicken it's called AIRMANSHIP.

I am still here. Not because I am clever, but like all sensible aviators I am nervous.........................

PS why can we not have a spill and grimmer checker on this sight?
You have not a shred of hard evidence to support your assertions which because you appear to be a very clever and articulate individual has me so bemused.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 20:06
  #7197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by cazatou View Post
SFFP

You have neglected one important finding of the AAIB - which was that the Chinook impacted at a speed of approx 150 kts. That equates to slightly greater than 253 ft/sec or approximately 80 metres/sec. The highest estimate of the visibility by those in the vicinity was by Mr Murchie (a Qualified Met Observer) whose estimate was "15 to 20 metres at most".

If I was a barrister in a court of law and was to ask Mr Murchie to tell me on oath what the actually visibility was 30 meters away from where he stood what do you reckon his answer would be

That speed therefore gave them just one quarter of a second to acquire, recognise and attempt to avoid danger.

1/4 of a second to spot and react

I must point out, however, that the assessed speed at impact was whilst attempting an apparent escape manoeuvre ; the speed prior to that attempt would of course have been greater.

Whilst it is apparent that a belated escape manoeuvre was attempted, that attempt was to late to prevent impact with the ground.

Where did they find the time to spot and react to the upcoming disaster if the vis was only 20 to 30 meters

The Forecast weather for the Mull would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR. The actual weather at the Mull as assessed by 2 qualified Met Observers was distinctly worse than the Forecast. That assessment was reinforced by the evidence of 7 other eye witnesses.
Caz,

If you were really a pilot in the RAF you would know for sure that a forecast is precisely that, it's a best guess as to what may happen weather wise in the coming hours.

In my 20 odd years of flying the amount of forecasts that eventually mirror actuals is absolutely nowhere near 100%

This really is not rocket science, I make tea and coffee for a living and even I get it.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 20:37
  #7198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,206
bast0n:
Ploughing on - thumb in bum - in worsening weather/vis/snow/turbulence et all relying on the dodgy black boxes that the crew knew about does not seem to me to be a sensible course of action
.
Well of course you are quite right, indeed you are so right as to be more than quite right but utterly and totally right! Congratulations for encapsulating the very essence of good airmanship so succinctly. Is the above quote by chance one of the "Rules of Airmanship" quoted by JP, or merely stating the blindingly obvious?
What on earth has it to do with the price of fish? The implication is that the pilots did the very thing that you feel not to be sensible, which of course would be an act of Gross Negligence and agrees entirely with the RO's finding. If that is indeed what you are saying, I find your oft repeated assurance that the pilots were not negligent but were in error as to be somewhat disingenuous. They may well have been in error, I think that is a possibility that all acknowledge. They may just as equally have acted in a completely exemplary fashion to the very end but were helpless in avoiding the accident that both would know confronted them. We just don't know. Well most of us just don't know. Some of course know that they would never have found themselves in that latter situation, thanks to their superior knowledge, experience and proficiency. Others merely think, "There but for the Grace of God...".
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 21:01
  #7199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Recent posters remind me of two aphorisms attributed to the great economist, John Maynard Keynes.

1. There are only two kinds of economic forecasters: those who don't know what will happen and those who don't know that they don't know what will happen.

Similar attitudes, with the timescale reversed, are all too common on this thread. Nobody, but NOBODY, will ever know precisely how and why the Chinook flew into cumulo-granite. End of story.

2. When accused of having changed his mind, Keynes replied "When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?"

In this case, it is now abundantly clear that the "facts", as presented to the BoI, have changed radically. Why, then, have W & D not changed their opinions?

Roll on Lord Philip's report!
Vertico is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 21:07
  #7200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Ploughing on - thumb in bum - in worsening weather/vis/snow/turbulence et all relying on the dodgy black boxes that the crew knew about does not seem to me to be a sensible course of action
Interesting work of fiction, demonstrating a modicum of literary flair.

Anybody interested in returning to what we can (or cannot) establish as matters of indisputable fact?

May I start the ball rolling? How about if we ALL agree that:

1) ZD576 spent much of it's transit of the Irish sea in VFR

2) Non of the handful of witnesses standing on the Mull of Kintyre describe the weather as anything other than thick (occasionally patchy?) fog. All were at altitudes some way above sea level.

3) AAIB could not positively determine the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576.

4) ZD576 impacted rising terrain at very (relatively) high speed.

5) A computer model suggests a possible manoeuvre in the 3 secs prior to impact which could explain the parameters exhibited by ZD576 at the moment of impact.

6) No voice or flight data records exist of actions or inactions in the cockpit of ZD576 at any time during the fatal flight, save the briefest of snippets from the navigation computer, which was never designed to provide historical data.

7) There were no survivors. Nor eyewitnesses, save a yachtsman, from the moment the aircraft coasted out from NI until some time after impact.

For our purposes I suggests we set to one side, the serious airworthiness issues.

Anyone care to disagree with any of these points? Or take them further? Or add other hard FACTS?

If anyone can marshal a set of facts which leads to a completely inevitable conclusion, with no possible alternatives, then we may be able to get somewhere???

Gentlemen (ladies?): Over to you.

Otherwise, tragically we may just have to accept, whilst we can have our own opinions, the available facts don't allow us to be certain.

Regards

Last edited by Tandemrotor; 2nd Dec 2010 at 21:27.
Tandemrotor 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.