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, 21:25
  #7201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Hey Ho Old Seldom!

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
No - but the out come of the flight suggests so. Pragmatism again.

Can you confirm how you know this to be factually correct
No - but the out come of the flight suggests so. Pragmatism again.


It's not called being chicken it's called AIRMANSHIP.
Yes - does it appear to you that this is what they were displaying?
If so please elaborate.

Night night.
bast0n is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 21:34
  #7202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Whilst so called 'pragmatism' is absolutely understandable in forming an opinion, it is not a standard of proof recognised in any court of law!

When facts speak for themselves, pragmatism is utterly superfluous!
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 21:34
  #7203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Hey Ho Old Seldom!



No - but the out come of the flight suggests so. Pragmatism again.



No - but the out come of the flight suggests so. Pragmatism again.




Yes - does it appear to you that this is what they were displaying?
If so please elaborate.

Night night.
Sir,

With regard to your theory I rest my case
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 08:13
  #7204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

Airmanship

Yes - does it appear to you that this is what they were displaying?
If so please elaborate.
Please answer - cheers.

Tandem

When facts speak for themselves, pragmatism is utterly superfluous!
You are saying that I do not need to be pragmatic because the facts prove my opinion?

I don't think so old bean!
bast0n is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 09:04
  #7205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 287
Tandem,

I am not a pilot, but know a bit about computer simulation, so suggest that this statement should be amended:

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.
I suggest:

5) A computer model, programmed to assume a trimmed aircraft, had to suggest a possible manoeuvre in the 3 secs prior to impact to explain the inconsistencies between trimmed flight and the parameters exhibited by ZD576 at the moment of impact.
EG
ExGrunt is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 09:47
  #7206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by bast0n View Post
Seldom

Airmanship



Please answer - cheers.
I have absolutely no idea if they were displaying exemplary airmanship or were totally disregarding all safety factors.

But if we get right to the heart of it neither do you, the difference between to pair of us is I am open minded enough to grasp that.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 10:15
  #7207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
EG

Thanks, I will take that on board. Can you explain the significance of the changes you have made?

Also, are you familiar with flight simulations, and this one in particular?

Many thanks.
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 10:26
  #7208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Seldom

But if we get right to the heart of it neither do you, the difference between to pair of us is I am open minded enough to grasp that.
That is fair comment. All I have said is that in view of the outcome of the flight it is fair to say that I veer to the view that mistakes were made. That's all.
bast0n is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 10:58
  #7209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Baston,
I think a lot of us "vere to the view" that mistakes were made.

That is insufficient grounds for verdicts of Gross Negligence, Negiligence or Aircrew Error.

The incidents reported by Sqn Ldr Burke offer the possible cause as Technical Defect. The long odds of this happening at a critical stage of flight are lessened by Tucumseh's excellent research into the Airworthiness issues.
Still not a proven fact though.

What the majority of us are campaigning for is the only sensible verdict.

Cause Not Positively Determined
dalek is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 12:01
  #7210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
SFFP

Your 7279

You are absolutely correct that a forecast is a "Best Guess".

That "Best Guess" would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull Of Kintyre; according to the Findings of the BOI. The Pilots should therefore have planned to transit the Mull at or above Safety Altitude and should only have descended to low level flight again once they were unequivocally certain that they could continue the flight under VFR conditions. This they did not do.

9 witnesses on the Mull gave evidence in respect of the actual weather at the time of the crash to the BOI. All of those witnesses heard or felt the crash -therefore their recollections are specifically linked to the time of the crash. Their evidence shows that the actual weather at the time of the crash was considerably worsethan the forecast weather and therefore precluded flight in accordance with VFR at that time.

These witnesses were some hundreds of feet above sea level and thus above the cloud base. The Yachtsman was, of course, at sea level some 2 NM from the Mull with a visibility of "1 NM limited by haze" and would thus have a different perspective from those in the immediate vicinity of the Mull. Moreover, he was not aware of the tragedy until some considerable time later. His recollections will not, therefore, necessarily be specifically linked to the crash; because he was unaware of such an occurrence until much later.

Failure to comply with the basic rules in respect of VFR flight at low level when faced with poor en route weather in the vicinity of high ground resulted in this tragedy.
cazatou is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 12:20
  #7211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,578
Failure to comply with the basic rules in respect of VFR flight at low level when faced with poor en route weather in the vicinity of high ground resulted in this tragedy.
You weren't there, you can't reasonably make such a firm statement.

Lastly, define 'vicinity'.
BEagle is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 12:31
  #7212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Caz,
Three very simple questions. I bet you don't answer.

1. If Holbrook was 2nms from the Mull and the Vis was limited all around to 1nm, how come he could see the lighthouse area on the Mull?
2. If the sortie was impossible to complete without IFR fliight at the Mull, (illegal due to icing limitations), how come the BOI and all the other bodies did not severely criticise the Planning and Flight Authorisation?
3. You are of course aware of Sqn Ldr Burke. How can you be certain that none of the FADEC / UFCM incidents happened on this flight?
dalek is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 12:44
  #7213 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Beagle - 'vicinity' - I wouldn't bother to ask - not one of them has responded to several requests to do so (they don't know!), just as not one of them has been able to support their absolute certainty as to how the crew operated in the last few minutes.

Originally Posted by Cazatou
That "Best Guess" would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull Of Kintyre; according to the Findings of the BOI. The Pilots should therefore have planned to transit the Mull at or above Safety Altitude and should only have descended to low level flight again once they were unequivocally certain that they could continue the flight under VFR conditions. This they did not do.
- unbelievable crap. That ably demonstrates that some of our posters (Cazatou for sure) have NO (or have 'lost' ANY) IDEA of

a) The RTS of the a/c
b) What the MSA was
c) How such low-level ops are conducted
d) the fact that there was, as far as we know, NO PLAN to 'transit the Mull' in any case.

This thread is stuffed with low-level experts who boast they would:

abort if they saw a cloud on the coast

climb immediately to MSA if there was cloud forecast below MSA en-route

Heaven help us. Thankfully our low-level pilots operate normally. We are wasting our time engaging these folk in discussions. One has to hope that the mental processes were better when in any relevant post.
BOAC is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 15:07
  #7214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,882
Dalek

Tucumseh's excellent research into the Airworthiness issues.
Thank you kind sir but “research” is perhaps too strong a word.

The regulations required (at the time) Boscombe, Controller Aircraft and ACAS, in turn, to declare the aircraft airworthy and fit for safe flight.

Boscombe and CA did not. Based on the same evidence, ACAS did. It remains unclear what independent trials he paid for in the few days between CA’s advice and him issuing the RTS, but I’m hopeful Lord Philip will ask for this basic part of the audit trail.

MoD have happily provided this information to quite a few on PPRuNe, including the Mull Group many years ago, long before I ever joined the forum. Internal and external reports and audits too numerous to mention have confirmed this since the late 80s; some specific to Chinook. I simply reiterate what is well known, irrefutable fact. That the regulations were systematically ignored. That Boscombe’s advice was withheld from Users. That the senior Test Pilot’s experiences with the aircraft were withheld/not investigated. That “Essential” modifications (in a safety sense) were not progressed, never mind embodied and trialled. That the RAF took no corrective action despite the evidence in the BoI, AAIB and FAI reports. So many facts when so many claim there are none. So many people with a vested interest in them not being aired. (And if you want names, they wrote to the press in January!).
tucumseh is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 15:50
  #7215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
BOAC

unbelievable crap. That ably demonstrates that some of our posters (Cazatou for sure) have NO (or have 'lost' ANY) IDEA of

a) The RTS of the a/c
b) What the MSA was
c) How such low-level ops are conducted
d) the fact that there was, as far as we know, NO PLAN to 'transit the Mull' in any case.
Hang on a minute old chap! Don't get over excited!

This was a perfectly straight forward low level passenger flight from a to b that ended up running into a hill. Very sad.

These flights are not the stuff of rocket science - simple to plan and simple to fly, and actually, usually great fun as well.

This one ended in tragedy and on the balance of probaility, for equally simple reasons.

No - no one can be 100% sure of anything in life before or after any event.

This thread is stuffed with low-level experts
There I think you may be correct and I find both sides of this discussion fascinating both for the divergent views and the differing interpretations of events leading to the crash.

My view - I suspect you think - is simplistic. Your are right in that view, if you hold it, as I think this was a simple case of pilot error.

"Nibbled to death by ducks" used to be the saying of how all the parameters leading to an accident happened and eventually all the cogs lined up. The lining up of these cogs was usually an unfortunate combination of simple steps, any one of which had it been removed would have prevented tragedy.

I think that emotive statements such as "unbelievable crap" do little to further the arguement or your status within it.
bast0n is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 16:05
  #7216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,882
"Nibbled to death by ducks" used to be the saying of how all the parameters leading to an accident happened and eventually all the cogs lined up. The lining up of these cogs was usually an unfortunate combination of simple steps, any one of which had it been removed would have prevented tragedy.

Well said Baston. And I've mentioned one such step/cog/duck or even hole in a slice of cheese that led to them having to fly a Mk2 instead of a Mk1. There may indeed have been others, like a pilot error, but you are absolutely right to say all the cogs should be studied. That is why the regs required Organisational Fault, and other contributory factors, to be considered. One day, perhaps that particular regulation will be implemented properly.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 16:45
  #7217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Tuc

What you have unearthed about design or functional safety and incompetent airworthiness process is hugely important because then legally (I believe) the responsibility is shared between the first actions of negligence and any subsequent actions by others (if proven).

I cannot believe that some people, while wishing to clear the names of the pilots, want to 'set aside' the argument about the patent lack of documented airworthiness. Such an argument seems the only thing that is factually provable and it cannot be denied - thanks to you. If people wish to spend their time going around and around the same old arguments (as seen on this forum) - ones that the MoD have consistently rebuffed and dodged - then I believe they are missing a big trick. Just the threat of dragging a few airships' names through the mud should be enough to bring the MoD to table.

Fortunatley, it is too late for that - as airworthiness (or lack of) is very much within the remit of the current Review and I trust Lord Philip and his team will do the honorable thing and put the matter to rest - once and for all; for the sake of so many.
flipster is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2010, 22:53
  #7218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. John's Wood
Posts: 291
Just the threat of dragging a few airships' names through the mud ....
Oh, I certainly hope it is more than mud that their airships have to face. Loss of liberty would be more appropriate.
Abbey Road is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2010, 01:07
  #7219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Airborne Aircrew

Your post #7274 was a refreshingly informative one.
Two good witnesses on the ground that evening descibed the layer of mist that you describe.
Met theory explains it.
It is there for all to see at the right time with a strong southerly blowing.
By all accounts the localised weather was as could be expected, a capping oro cloud (base that day about 800 ft), beneath this a thin layer running up the slope (as I have described previously).
Bad enough view ahead for a pilot to need to check his instruments just to avoid spatial disorientation, let alone get by visual illusion regarding range to go.
Just how certain do you (collectively speaking - pls don't pull me up on that one again!) need the weather to be? 99%? Unfortunately the attending helicopter that arrived less than an hour after the crash only gave the description of conditions on the high ground - pity he was not asked to say what the view was like from out to sea.
Being totally surprised upon entering the mist could explain the enigma of the intermediate power settings, NR 100.5%, yet fully pulled up thrust lever - it had been yanked up reflexively but there was wasn't even time for the rotors to start slowing down never mind engines increase power before impact (the 100.5 % figure came from a witness mark on an instrument as I believe).
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2010, 07:28
  #7220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 1,119
the attending helicopter that arrived less than an hour after the crash only gave the description of conditions on the high ground - pity he was not asked to say what the view was like from out to sea.
That would have been interesting to have had on record!
Bertie Thruster 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.