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 10th Jan 2011, 13:35
  #7461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
I have never seen the relevant documents, and I therefore do not know. Regards JP
What relevant documents, JP? On this thread alone there has been an abundance of links published, including ones to the HoL hearing to which dalek refers. Just as with your "unfamiliarity" with airworthiness the abiding impression is one of a disingenuous attitude in your posts.
Never mind documents JP, seen or unseen. What possible justification was there in the BoI failing to call the one man, both experienced and qualified with the flight and engine control shortcomings of the Chinook HC2, to give evidence to them? Why was Sqn Ldr Burke forbidden to contact them if it wasn't to hide such shortcomings?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 15:10
  #7462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Sarcastic - Moi?

JP,

Sarcasm - mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult.

Obfuscate - To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. To render indistinct or dim; darken. "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).

Disingenuous - Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating, pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.


I am sorry that at post 7517 you thought I was being sarcastic – I thought that I was merely pointing out facts that you and other supporters of the guilt based on speculation verdict like Caz continue to ignore since they are not saying what you want them to say. The problem is, as I see it, now in three parts which are highly inter-related, but which it is possible to consider separately.

Firstly what caused the accident - the answer to which is "we will never know", but people like you are convinced that you do know and are prepared to pronounce guilt based purely on speculation - I cannot see any way to persuade you otherwise and, as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.

Secondly there is the legal issue on which neither the Reviewing Officers nor people like you and me are qualified to comment. Here the HofL, which included a Law Lord, has said that at the time they reached this verdict the ROs did not reach a legally sustainable decision based on the facts of the case. This was the summary in my last post that neither you nor others like Caz have ever offered any answer to – so it is, I suggest, reasonable to assume that you do not have one. I am now speculating, but it is difficult to see how Lord Philip will find any difference of opinion on the legal aspects from the HofL unless someone comes forward with factual evidence that backs the "Gross Negligence" verdict - I think this is unlikely, but it would be wrong of me to pre-judge this. (I am, incidentally, personally convinced that those who sought the DLS advice could not have give them the full facts, since DLS are usually spot on with these issues, and I would not have expected them to offer different advice to the conclusions of the HofL Inquiry - MOD did not give them the full facts before the FAI either, and we have written proof of this. I suppose in mitigation one might argue that DLS would never have had the full facts because the Board hadn’t investigated them)

Thirdly, and ironically, of course there is the can of worms on the airworthiness and CAR/RTS issues that the Board's flawed investigation, and even more flawed analysis, together with this unjust verdict by the ROs have caused to be exposed. A just verdict would probably have left these issues buried. Whether these flaws were an indirect or even direct cause of the accident I do not know – unlike others I am not making any claims to know the cause or pronounce on guilt. I also do not know whether Lord Philip will look at this area, but the scandal here is at least as big as Haddon-Cave exposed on the Nimrod accident, and in some ways it is worse since, in my view, the failure to expose these issues at that time meant that the RAF was allowed to continue with its inadequate airworthiness and "fitness for purpose" policies and compromise its duty of care whilst yet more lives were lost to “airworthiness” related accidents over another 14 years.

I know that for the families clearing their sons’ names is the number one priority. I understand this, and I would not wish to see or do anything that prejudiced such an outcome – for that, and not speculation on the cause of the accident, is the prime reason for this thread, and, I assume, Lord Philip’s Review. However, I would also like to see Lord Philip pronounce on point 3 since I believe there are indeed some negligent and guilty parties in this area.

JB

Last edited by John Blakeley; 10th Jan 2011 at 15:40.
John Blakeley is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2011, 17:04
  #7463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by dalek View Post
JP,

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.
I would wager a hefty bag of money that JP has not only seen but is fully conversant with the documentation you mention but to allow it into "his" debate means it would have to be argued against, which only a fool would try.

You may get an opinion from Caz on this but JP will never be drawn on it.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 09:51
  #7464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

John Blakeley. Thanks for your three points above. I daresay you have already made them to Lord Philips, and we can expect him to give them the consideration they deserve. Regards JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 12:26
  #7465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
JP:

It would be nice if you could get the man's name right... It shows a certain lack of respect for both the man and the process...
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 13:03
  #7466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
And, my I add, a lack of attention to detail.
Maybe, JP, that is why you are able to reach the decisions you do.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 13:13
  #7467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

At 7549, for Philips please read Philip. All happy now? JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 13:24
  #7468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
No John. Attention to detail is not waiting for others to see the mistake(or inconsistancy) and then correcting it with bad grace. Had you admitted to a keyboard cock-up we would have understood, but not necessarily believed.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 14:51
  #7469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Is there no one else on this forum who is willing to agree or disagree with Chinook240's statement that the STANS was not "connected" to the horizontal situation indicators?
Is it to much to ask that we clearly determine just what the navigation system and the flight instruments could do?
It could hardly be "OPSEC" (or whatever you want to call sensitive) as other a/c of the time (mil & civil) had the facility.
There may have been a reason why Doppler/GPS track data was not used to drive the CDIs of the HSIs at the time in HC2s - if so, surely this anomaly is of interest to this case.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 10:05
  #7470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745
ROG

Re your post 7549 in respect of a lack of attention to detail - where you wrote "my I add" did you mean "may I add"?
cazatou is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 11:53
  #7471 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
I believe I saw Cazatou 'grazing' here this morning? Since I cannot see his posts at the moment, can anyone tell me if he has managed to answer JB's questions?
BOAC is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 11:59
  #7472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,638
BOAC,

Not yet, I'm afraid. He is just spending his time looking for typos in other posts.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 13:02
  #7473 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Thank you, p1 - I expect JB is impressed
BOAC is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 14:02
  #7474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by BOAC View Post
Thank you, p1 - I expect JB is impressed
I suspect you will find he has grown used to it
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 14:16
  #7475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Missing Answers

P1, SFP and BOAC,

You are all correct - I have long ago given up expecting answers to factual questions, and I guess we are all used to getting oft repeated speculative opinions in lieu. I wonder if Caz and JP have put anything forward to Lord Philip's Review?

JB
John Blakeley is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 14:23
  #7476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by John Blakeley View Post
P1, SFP and BOAC,

You are all correct - I wonder if Caz and JP have put anything forward to Lord Philip's Review?

JB
Intuition tells me that at least one of them will be praying hard to a much higher judge than Lord Philip that the verdict stands and the matter simply goes away.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 01:44
  #7477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
Caz, you're correct, and I admit to a keyboard cock-up. However it gave you and your twin something to grab at. More's the pity you cannot or will not answer the questions which have been put to you. That would be a worthwhile exercise.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 14:26
  #7478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,689
When I want a good laugh, I enter this thread. For sheer puerile playground bickering, without descending into gutter language, this has to be the best forum around.

I have to suggest that nothing is going to be resolved by this correspondence, and that people could do well to get out more. Including me.

But then, I was not aircrew so am not privy to the workings of the collective mind.

I'll pop back from time to time to check up.

[now this gives BOTH sides a chance to find a common foe, and kiss and make up ....... blame the MetMan, he's used to it]

"When I'm right, no-one remembers, when I'm wrong no-one forgets"
langleybaston is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 14:48
  #7479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 76
Posts: 208
LB

Its about time someone said it. Well done, LB
Boslandew is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2011, 10:31
  #7480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 418
WK

Is there no one else on this forum who is willing to agree or disagree with Chinook240's statement that the STANS was not "connected" to the horizontal situation indicators?
Why do you need someone else to agree or disagree - are you suggesting I have lied about the instrumentation layout of the Chinook HC Mk 2? I have stated facts and they don't need corroboration, so accept them and don't piss people off, especially someone trying to help you understand the system!
chinook240 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.