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 20th Jan 2011, 13:54
  #7521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
I have referred to this incident before, but have now found a link to the original article.

https://safety.army.mil/Portals/mult...es/ffmay98.pdf

Whilst the hypothesis of Air Marshals Day & Wratten "fits the known facts", so would this account of a near accident if applied to ZD576 from a starting altitude of 400-500 ft. The UFCM incident described is not conjectural; it happened and could have been the cause of the Mull crash. I commend you all to read it.

Note: My Anti-Virus software warns that there may be a problem with the site's security certificate, though downloading the article doesn't appear to have caused any problem. If you are worried, Transport Canada has reproduced the article here (though I haven't checked that it is verbatim):

Aviation Safety Vortex 3/1998 - Transport Canada
meadowbank is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2011, 14:24
  #7522 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Hmm - it MUST be obvious that was purely gross negligence - without any doubt? You cannot even blame it on cloud on a hill. Our two SO's would, no doubt, have been straight into serious disciplinary action there.
BOAC is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 08:58
  #7523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Request for Information:

Gentlemen (and Ladies),

I am sure it will not have escaped your attention that Lord Philip is conducting a review of the Mull of Kintyre tragedy. As part of that inquiry, it does not take the brains of an archbishop to reaslise that the engineering safety and design husbandry of the Chinook from the mid-1980s onwards raises more than a few questions (this was confirmed by ministers in Westminster in the late 1990s).

The Recent Haddon-Cave Review pointed the finger at the loss of the RAF's Chief Engineer (CE) as one of the prime reasons for the acknowledged systemic failings in the RAF's adherence to safety directives.

Therefore, I would imagine that there are a number of questions about the record of the Chinook that we would all like to ask of all the most recent CEs. To that end, who exactly were the incumbents of the post of RAF Chief Engineer? (I have checked the Google & RAFweb and can find only one).

flipster
flipster is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 12:13
  #7524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
I have referred to this incident before, but have now found a link to the original article.

https://safety.army.mil/Portals/mult...es/ffmay98.pdf
Thanks I hadn't realised that this CH47 suffered the same blade strike damage as found on the wreckage of ZD576.

EG
ExGrunt is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 12:20
  #7525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Blade Strike Damage

Hadn't been aware of this before. Doesn't it start to shift the cause markedly towards "Technical Failure - with absolutely no doubt whatsoever"? Not there yet, but certainly moving well away from Gross Negligence on the part of the pilots.

ExGrunt Is Lord Philip aware of the blade damage?

Last edited by Vertico; 21st Jan 2011 at 12:46.
Vertico is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 12:36
  #7526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandhurst, Berkshire
Age: 52
Posts: 229
Just had one fly over my office in Basingstoke at rather a rapid rate of knots and very low... loved it... fantastic sound...

scudpilot is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 13:55
  #7527 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
I have very little heli time or knowledge, but I don't think this sort of 'damage' would have any relevance - I would have thought that a heavy impact like this one would cause enough droop on the blades to hit the fuselage? I suspect this is a wild goose chase.
BOAC is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 15:09
  #7528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
BOAC
Here, here.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 18:06
  #7529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,637
Is it of any interest that both Canadian pilots put on full rudder? The fact that Cook or Tapper did the same has led to some debate on this thread in the past.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2011, 18:23
  #7530 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Yes, I did notice that - to be clear, I am saying above that I don't think the body strikes are relevant, not the UFCM - that could well be relevant.
BOAC is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 21:23
  #7531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: SW England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,243
meadowbank,

I'm indebted to you for the definitive Flightfax article - your Google skills are clearly far greater than mine. It's the one thing I'd hoped to find (along with a decent publicly-available report of the Falklands airtest crash) to give to Bast0n et al to read.

pulse1,

It was a US Army crew, not Canadian Forces. I agree that the control input similarity between this incident and the one on the Mull is noteworthy.
Thud_and_Blunder is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2011, 09:11
  #7532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Thud

to give to Bast0n et al to read
Thank you - I had already read it some time ago, and as you comment it is a very interesting article made even more so as I believe to this day they do not know what caused it to happen.

Probably not pilot error then.....................
bast0n is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2011, 13:59
  #7533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
The point about the US Army incident (my post on 20th Jan, above) is that a similar occurrence could have been the cause of the crash of ZD576. We'll never know, of course, but that's the whole point.

This US Army Chinook was examined thoroughly, along with the evidence of its crew, and no fault could be found, so it's hardly surprising that no evidence of technical malfunction was found in the wreckage of ZD576 - a fact that the Air Marshals used to point towards Gross Negligence. As the same cause cannot be ruled out, this finding cannot be safe and the pilots must be exonerated. Incidentally, as this UFCM was subsequent to the BofI for ZD576, I assume it could be considered by the MoD to be 'new evidence'?

Baston said:
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.
Still seem far-fetched, Baston? This event could have happened in VMC and the aircraft have flown into IMC whilst the crew were attempting to handle it. They may even have been recovering from their own 'aileron' roll to arrive in a nose-high attitude with nearly full pedal at impact.

Perhaps 'John Purdey' would care to comment?
meadowbank is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2011, 23:18
  #7534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likely answer by JP.....

"They were doing aeros in fog? Definitely negligent!"


The Recent Haddon-Cave Review pointed the finger at the loss of the RAF's Chief Engineer (CE) as one of the prime reasons for the acknowledged systemic failings in the RAF's adherence to safety directives.

Therefore, I would imagine that there are a number of questions about the record of the Chinook that we would all like to ask of all the most recent CEs. To that end, who exactly were the incumbents of the post of RAF Chief Engineer? (I have checked the Google & RAFweb and can find only one).
Okay, I'll narrow it down - RAF 'Chief Engineers' 1985 -1999. Any takers?
flipster is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:52
  #7535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
tucumseh is online now  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:54
  #7536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 76
Posts: 208
End of Line

When one contributor starts suggesting flippantly and offensively what another contributors response is likely to be, this thread has surely reached the end of its credible life. I shall not bother contributing again.
Boslandew is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 10:08
  #7537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Chinook

Bos. Nor shall I. JP
John Purdey is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 10:26
  #7538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Rather than get upset over a little personal digging which, God knows, I get enough of myself on this forum, perhaps we should concentrate on the main issue.

As Flipster says, Haddon-Cave claimed airworthiness failings only commenced in 1998 with the demise of the RAF Chief Engineer post. In saying this, he implied the CE had the responsibility and ability to prevent such failings.

This cannot be reconciled with;
a. The Chief of Defence Procurement’s admission to the Public Accounts Committee in March 1998 that the Chinook (and other aircraft) still suffered from long-term systemic airworthiness failings.
b. Evidence presented to Haddon-Cave that these failings commenced in, at least, 1988.
c. Evidence heard by the Board of Inquiry relating to these failings.

It follows ACM Alcock has some explaining to do. He has put his name in the public domain by signing letters to the press “Chief Engineer 1991-96”. My first question would be – So what did you do about the systemic failings you were notified of throughout your tenure?

Given CDP’s evidence in 1998, not a lot it would seem. But, he must be given the opportunity to state his case and Lord Philip is, I suggest, just the man. One must be fair and the evidence is he inherited major legacy problems from his predecessors.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 13:20
  #7539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 369
Bos and JP, for goodness sake grow up and stop acting like spoiled children. This is an anonymouse (sort of) Forum where people express their own opinions in there own way.If you can get upset by something so trivial, perhaps you should go. However the loss of a different point of view would be unfortunate.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 16:04
  #7540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
LOL!
(I think that is the correct 'yoof-speak' for my reaction to Boz and JP's posts!)
Will they keep their promise? Answers on post-card please.


Now, more seriously, Tuc makes a good point; what did the RAF's Chief Engineers do exactly when advised of systemic failings?

D1

Last edited by flipster; 27th Jan 2011 at 12:00. Reason: spolling errers
flipster 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.