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 8th Jan 2011, 11:42
  #7441 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Hardly an expert witness with the calibre of Sqn Ldr Burke then?
dalek is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 11:55
  #7442 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by dalek View Post
Hardly an expert witness with the calibre of Sqn Ldr Burke then?
Sadly an understanding of, and preferably some direct experience of SH is not a pre requisite for posting in here, if it was then I suspect one or two would see the folly of their stance.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 13:19
  #7443 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 61
Posts: 1,463
With due respect, you do not need to know the answers to your other questions.
The very purpose of "pleading the fifth" is to avoid self incrimination. Oddly enough, the very act is, as often as not, equally damning...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 14:33
  #7444 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
<<The PM and Defence Secretary at the time have both actively supported the campaign >>
What value are their crocodile tears today? - makes you feel like there's some real support? - leave it to the big boys? - seems like it's ok for you hands-on aircrew to do nothing?
Have you not noticed that the high profile politicians manage the public as opposed to enacting their will?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 14:37
  #7445 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,688
My stance is that justice under the rules, and indeed natural justice, does not seem to have been done.

I submit that the qualifications to taking and publicising a legitimate stance are simple:

1. the ability to write and read and understand English. (got the relevant O levels, language and lit. t-shirts)

2. an open mind.

I came to this thread knowing no more than a member of the general public other than being Duty Churchwarden at St Boniface, JHQ, when the appalling news of the disaster broke.

Given that "nobody really knows what happened" (my shorthand of the previos 'n' pages) the extant verdict is insupportable, in my view. Those better qualified than I can argue over technicalities, but such argument, at best, avoids my central issue. Perhaps it is meant to.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 14:46
  #7446 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
As you would be aware, I find Sqn Leader Burke's opinions re the HC2 rather misleading:- he did not point out the wings-level slew significance for slowing real quick (indeed his opinion was to completely discount the slew demand as anything normal for a Chinook); when describing the fully pulled up thrust/collective he did not identify the correlation with the rotor rpm that pointed to a last second pull up on that lever immediately before impact (rotor pitch had responded but there had not been time for them to slow leaving power still at intermediate) - both critical in understanding this crash.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 14:59
  #7447 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this thread.

I base mine on many thousands of flying hours and the fact that I not only used but taught one of the critical components (TANS navigation computer) in this case. This piece of equipment is a Prime Suspect and has been misused by the MOD to support its case.

I am, however, a Navigator, not a pilot, and have never been on a Chinook Squadron. So there are far more qualified people on this thread to comment on some of the flying aspects of this accident.

The Sqn Ldr Burke we refer to, was at the time the Unit Test Pilot and the person best qualified to give evidence at the Board of Enquiry. The MOD (person or persons unknown), not only prevented this, but ordered him not to cooperate with the Air Accident Investigation.

Hope this clears things up.
dalek is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 15:12
  #7448 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745

Re your 7521

I do not recall you demanding answers to such questions from Brian Dixon. Equally, I was not aware that you had the Authority to demand such answers from contributors.

Please enlighten us as to your place in the PPRuNe Hierachy which enables you to make such demands.
cazatou is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 15:56
  #7449 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Gentlemen, may I suggest we tread carefully in undermining individual posters? There are people here who have a far greater personal interest than those of us who postulate about injustice.

Maybe it is best to stick to fact and reasonable supposition.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 16:53
  #7450 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370

The word "demand" does not feature anywhere.
What OO decides to tell us is down to him.
The fact he decides not to tell means (to me).
a. He was not a current at the time of his involvment with this case.
b. He has little or no Chinook experience.
c. He is not a qualified engineer.
d. He has no significant experience in a Flight Safety organisation such as IFS or AAIB.

I accept that I could be wrong on one or all of the above.

Please stop inserting inflamatory words which I certainly never intended.

Instead of protecting someone who is perfectly capable of looking after himself why not try answering questions.

Olive Oil,

No offence intended.
dalek is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 18:41
  #7451 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
I can see from other posts that Cazatou and probably JP have returned to post here. Could anyone tell me if they HAVE answered any of the questions and whether it is worth my while 'un-ignoring' them? (I am guessing probably not)
BOAC is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 20:34
  #7452 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
You're right BOAC-probably not.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2011, 22:34
  #7453 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635

Lots of Hissy going on.

Lets cool it chaps and see what the good Lord delivers. Bad manners and bad mouthing gets no one anywhere.

Well done so far.................Gentlemen.

Last edited by bast0n; 9th Jan 2011 at 17:08.
bast0n is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2011, 17:21
  #7454 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375

BOAC. I did answer, but by PM (in the somewhat vain hope of reducing the volume of noise here). I can only think that you did not read it. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2011, 17:25
  #7455 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375

Dalek. At 5303 you accepted the allegation that the whole thing was a conspiracy between the air, FS, tech and legal authorities at Group, Command and MOD levels. Or had you forgotten? Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2011, 17:32
  #7456 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
See 7538 and ponder......................and ponder.................Gentlemen?
bast0n is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 00:51
  #7457 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
JP, on page 266, your 5301 read:
Dalek & Chgalug.

I note the lack of reasoned response, so may I remind you of the reason that led to my joining this discussion some three years ago. It was the allegation that:

1. This Mk of Chinook was put into service when it was not fit for such service.
2. The RAF hierachy (that is to say CAS, CinC, AOC, and their staffs) knew full well that it was not fit to enter service but nevertheless insisted that it be flown.
3. When the Chinook crashed into the Mull, the heirachy decided to blame two innocent pilots in order to conceal their own failings.
4. This view was supported by the Air, Flight Safety, Engineer and Legal Saffs at Group, Command, AFB and MOD levels
5. Since then, no whistle-blower at any level has dared to put his head above the parapet to expose this conspiracy.

Will you be good enough to confirm that this is your opinion?

A simple question, not 'on the one hand and on the other' but a simple YES OR NO

Regards. JP
To which both myself and Dalek answered in posts 5302 and 5303 respectively, "Yes" to your question 1, rather than the misquote you now ascribe to Dalek. Being liberal with the evidence would appear to be a well honed tactic, not least in the scandal that is revealed in these very pages . As to the extent of that scandal, no doubt that will become clear all in good time as it is right now under review. I guess we'll all have to be patient in the meantime but, for what it's worth, my suspicions would be aimed up rather than down the CoC.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 09:21
  #7458 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370

A gross oversimplification of facts again.
But basically the answer is yes.
A group of Senior Officers and Civil Servants colluded to gain and maintain the Gross Negligence verdict. That is blindingly obvious. Otherwise why would Sqn Ldr Burke be prevented from giving evidence and why have Brian and the Mull Group been obstructed at every twist and turn from obtaining documents they deem relevant?
Were all Senior Officers and Civil Servants implicated? I doubt it. But you tell me, I bet you know everyone involved.
This is only an educated guess, but I a pretty sure that it is accurate because of the very first question you asked me three years ago.
I stated I knew three Officers of Air Rank who disagreed with the verdict.
You instantly PM'd me asking for names. Why did you consider that important?
I now know of five BTW.

All Flight Safety Staff were in agreement. As John Wayne would say, " the hell they were."
I had a Sqn Ldr friend on Wrattens staff. He was brave enough to tell Wratten that the Gross Negligence verdict was unjustified. Eight years later when I left the service, he was still a Sqn Ldr. Not a very forgiving man was Bill.

I have now answered your conspiracy question twice. Do me courtesy of answering mine once.
"Were the Royal Air Force justified in preventing Sqn Ldr Burke from giving evidence to the BOI."
dalek is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 10:50
  #7459 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375

Dalek. I have never seen the relevant documents, and I therefore do not know. Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 11:25
  #7460 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370

You have a very firm opinion on this case.
Are you really trying to tell us you have never seen, or at least read, the evidence given by Burke to the HOL enquiry?
If you havn't, then your opinion is about as valid as the Honourable Members of the HOL who rolled in from the bar to vote on the issue.
If you have, your flying experience gained a few years before, must tell you it was vital evidence to be considered by the BOI.
dalek 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.