Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Chugalug2]

I too have no idea what evidence or expert witnesses to the weather were recorded by the BoI, other than those on the Mull engulfed in fog and the yachtsman who wasn't. I would hazard a guess though that if any others were it would be in accord with the predisposed scenario that allowed an explanation of pilot error to be issued within mere hours of the tragedy. No-one is expecting such evidence from you here LB, any more than from other aircrew or engineers that have posted. All I ask is for your professional opinion on the MOD premiss that the orographic formation on the Mull hillside that day would have necessarily extended out to sea at least as far as the TP, thus justifying in their view the RO's finding. That appears to be in direct conflict with the one eye witness observing the helicopter and the Mull from seawards. He said that the former was clear of cloud and even reflecting sun light, while the mass of the latter could be determined despite the cloud and mist hugging its slopes, and that he could make out geographical features above the shoreline. Which of those two accounts seems the more likely to have been the case, LB? The former, composed after the event by theorists with an agenda, or the latter of a yachtsman recalling on oath what he had seen? Just a professional opinion, that's all I ask for.
Oh, edited to add that I believe that the MOD has since admitted that no-one can be certain of the weather conditions that day other than at the Mull itself, but that in the absence of "new" evidence the finding stands. How does that strike you?

[langleybaston]

I have had, for example, AVM Mike Knight AOC 1 Group during the Falklands War, and ACM Sir Sandy Wilson AOC in C RAFG during the Gulf War both pressing me, as their professional adviser, for an opinion that I was not qualified to give, let alone half a hundred Staish's such as Mickey Martin [RAF Nicosia]. All the latter got was a fag and a light ..... he was always on the scrounge in Met and Ops.

Not much mileage for any of them.

I maintain my stance of "I don't know, nobody knows, therefore the verdict was an affront to both the rules and justice".

[Chugalug2]

Thank you, LB.

"I don't know, nobody knows, therefore the verdict was an affront to both the rules and justice".

is as good a professional opinion as I could wish for. For in that very reasonable statement you demolish the MOD case completely which requires knowing the aircraft to have gone IMC at the TP. I have a nasty feeling that the MOD is set to "cut a deal", whereby they will maintain their "scenario" but magnanimously reduce the finding to "pilot error". A few years ago they would have got away with that. If they had done nothing other than confirm the BoI itself at the time they would have had none of this hassle and it would have been yet another case of CFIT. Thanks to their obduracy we now have a much different view of this accident and where the Gross Negligence truly lay. "Pilot Error" will be too little and too late to obscure that.
Once again I maintain that if this aircraft went IMC at the TP, while under control and maintained track, then that was indeed negligent, but you don't bast0n, do you? Why?

[bast0n]

Baston is a troll.

AA - I am quite happy to accept your viewpoint as you should be to accept mine.

I repeat what I have always maintained as my "personal" view. I do not know how, once again, to put it any more clearly.

I remember so well sitting on my sofa with my wife when their Lordships came up with the view - post BOI - that "Gross negligence" was their perceived view. I thought then and now that was a totally amazing and very un RAF like response, and totally without any foundation that I could see. Mind you, from where I was sitting not a lot could be seen. (Paperwork and all that).

I know all the stuff about the yachtsman and his view of the aircraft - straight up - and his horizontal view of the Mull - straight along - and the probabable view from the cockpit - slant viz and all that - which to those of us who have been there and done it are all totally different viewpoints, and all equally dangerous.

Suffice it to say that my view is that they made an error - however slight - that led to the impact with the ground.

It has happened before and will certainly happen again - the airworthiness issues in my view are a sideline however reprehensible that some feel that the powers that be were in sorting it out.

I feel dreadful that these super chaps - and I know from PMs that they were just that - died along with the others in this awfull accident - and that I think is what it was.

If you think me a Troll - so be it. I so wish to have the stigma of "Gross" negligence removed from their record and a more benevolent verdict recorded for all their, and the rest of the SH fleets peace of mind.

Yes - I occasionally like to put the pin into the puffed up views of those who pontificate with a view from so far back in the aircraft that - in my view - their opinions are clouded by the cloak of ignorance and lack of experience in the sort of flying involved here.

To all those who feel insulted by my standpoint, I apologise unreservedly, but it is at the end of the day only an opinion so do not shoot the poor old Jungly for having a view.................... based on a modicum of experience.

[Chugalug2]

bast0n, of course it is only your opinion and you are entitled to that of course, but based on what? It is possible that the aircraft did not go IMC until the very last few seconds before impact. I do not know that, I merely say that it is possible. That would have been after the TP and well after the next one was selected. Why on earth would these experienced pilots have maintained track instead of turning to the next one? You say that:

the airworthiness issues in my view are a sideline however reprehensible that some feel that the powers that be were in sorting it out.

yet we now know (and the BoI could have then if it had called upon the Odiham TP to give evidence) that UFCM's were a part of those "airworthiness issues". Without going into the minutiae of the can of worms that this aircraft was as "Released to Service", is there not sufficient doubt in your mind to substitute LB's:

"I don't know, nobody knows, therefore the verdict was an affront to both the rules and justice".

for your certainty that this was pilot error. Of course it might have been, but how do you know?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Baston:

Yes - I occasionally like to put the pin

It's the alarming frequency of your "occasional" that earns you the title...

With regard to everything else you say we only differ on the airworthiness issue. I believe the probability to be low that an actual airworthiness issue had a causative influence on the accident but I find it to be poetic justice that "the system", (whoever and whatever that might be in this instance), might have, in trying to gloss over some "paperwork peccadilloes", opened a veritable Pandora's Box. I will freely admit to a modicum of pleasure in their squirming since it was apparent to me after the Falklands "accident" that this aircraft was far more dangerous than people were telling.

[bast0n]

AA

It's the alarming frequency of your "occasional" that earns you the title

Oh dear! Am I entering the world of the personal?

Perhaps the frequency of pin'ing is because of the number of "those who pontificate with a view from so far back in the aircraft that - in my view - their opinions are clouded by the cloak of ignorance and lack of experience in the sort of flying involved here."

Sorry................................or perhaps not..................

[Chugalug2]

bast0n before you go, could you please answer my question? Your opinion is that the pilots were in error. What is that based on, that they crashed, or that they went IMC at the TP, or what? I cannot understand how you can be of that opinion based on mere circumstantial evidence, or even worse the MOD "old evidence". I am quite prepared to accept that they may have been in error, even that they may have been negligent, but I don't know. Do you, or are you indeed a "don't know"? If so why don't you simply say so?

[dervish]

"paperwork peccadilloes"

it was apparent to me after the Falklands "accident" that this aircraft was far more dangerous than people were telling.

AA, I'm not sure what you're saying here. If there was another accident that made you think the aircraft was dangerous (didn't Boscombe say this as well?) then surely any failings were more than "paperwork peccadilloes"?

Was this other example shared with the various inquiries? Were there other examples?

[bast0n]

Chugaz

Do you, or are you indeed a "don't know"? If so why don't you simply say so?

I quite thought that we were all "don't knows" but still can have firm opinions as to what probably happened. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.....................and so on.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

I quite thought that we were all "don't knows" but still can have firm opinions as to what probably happened. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.....................and so on.

Quite a reasonable response.
Many of the aircrew contributors, particularly those with LL experience, will have a "gut" feeling, even a " there but for the Grace of ....etc) but most will concede that they do not, nor cannot know why the accident occured ...with no doubt whatsoever.
Therefore the grossly negligent findings are in my opinion wrong and possibly cover up something more sinister and embarrasing for MOD and /or very Senior Officers. (but that I don't know, it is again, only my opinion)

[Chugalug2]

bast0n, thank you for your response and for saying indeed that, like most of us here, you do not know. It may seem pedantic of me to hound that response from you but there is method to my persistence. This accident is different because of what we now know. The BoI was a disgrace, purposely turning its gaze against a history of technical failure that it must have been aware of. Instead the focus was on the pilots' performance from the start, culminating in the outrageous finding by the RO's supported by "evidence" that would have made the KGB blush. Nonetheless that remains the MOD case, based solely on that "evidence" and by the simple word play of saying that anything brought against it is not "new" evidence it has ensured the stalemate that still exists. My hunch is that events, dear boy, are about to conspire against that, and their cunning plan is simply to offer the "pilot error" revised finding to get out of jail. That is why I think it is time for we professionals to examine our thoughts on this. Of course it could be pilot error, indeed it could have even been negligence, but for all that we now know, the truth is that we just don't know. Short of having a new Inquiry into this accident, and with due respect to the RAF what credibility would it have, the only acceptable finding would be cause unknown. Unlike AA my suspicions would centre on the aircraft airworthiness or lack of it, but again we are never likely to know now.
There is far more at stake here than the reputations of two deceased junior officers, what is truly at stake is the proper provision of Military Airworthiness and the Investigation of Military Air Accidents. Both functions were conducted with Gross Negligence in this case, to coin a prevalent phrase, and that must be faced up to and resolved in order that more avoidable fatal accidents are indeed avoided. "Pilot Error" with no basis of proof will merely allow the MOD to perpetuate the myth that this accident has been properly investigated and found to have been caused by the pilots. That would be yet another of their lies.

[BOAC]

Casting aside for a moment the hideous spectre of maladministration coupled with collusion at high levels in the MOD, I wish to focus purely, like many, on the departure from established 'rules' at BoI and reviewing officer level.

I think it useful to compare the findings of the Tornado fatal at round about the same time. Cause 'unknown'. For those who wish to speculate on the probability of pilot error, far more 'circumstantial' evidence, is there not? Was it found 'without any doubt'? No.

Why a different 'verdict'? As with many things in life, as soon as one sees a lack of joined-up writing, one begins to suspect.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Baston:

Oh dear! Am I entering the world of the personal?

Not at all. Just trying to help you understand why I would make such an accusation in the first place.

[jindabyne]

Today I took the time to re-visit earlier posts in 2002 - quite sobering.

[bast0n]

AA

I do not mind one bit your labeling me a Troll. I have been called much worse! Many times!

If you draw their track on a map, add in a few degrees of error from what ever source, pitch in slant/horizontal/vertical viz and a smattering of orographic cloud at the Mull and it seems fairly clear what probably happened.

To believe that some catastrophic event happened to the aircraft in VMC in the final seconds before impact seems a bit far fetched - to me.

We will never know - but what we do know is that the "Gross" finding is totally untenable - but the probability is that somewhere along the line a mistake was made in the cockpit. It will happen again, sadly.

As I said before:-

I quite thought that we were all "don't knows" but still can have firm opinions as to what probably happened. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.....................and so on.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

For goodness sake Dalek, Baston has an opinion but clearly states

We will never know - but what we do know is that the "Gross" finding is totally untenable

Where's your problem?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Baston:

We are in absolute agreement...

Can you stop trolling now please...It drives me nucking futz when everyone bites like hungry Piranhas...

As an aside

Interesting... Mozilla's spell checker, (the one I recommended you), seems to have a problem with the word "nucking" but seems to feel that "futz" is just peachy...

Funny really

Aside over...

[dalek]

Quite right everyone. I was repeating the bleeding obvious. Last message deleted. I will not bite again.

[langleybaston]

please can members distinguish between BastOn ...... with whom I have no connection, and me, langleybaston?

Signed

The langley of baston.

Neither of the above-mentioned would wish their utterances to be attributed to the other.