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 26th Jan 2011, 12:48
  #7541 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
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.
I don't see the comment was any more flippant than a football commentator saying something along the lines of "Considering how badly he's played so far, he'll probably miss this penalty too"! There is certainly no reason to take offence that was not likely to have been intended.

John Purdey
You may wish to decline to answer the public posts, but please be so kind as to answer your PMs.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 15:09
  #7542 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Faux indignation is a bit like blaming the reliability of your internet provider when it comes to the tough questions
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 12:10
  #7543 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 307
I think you, and previous posters have now driven this thread well off track... maybe intentional, maybe not.
Lets get back to the point, and lets be blunt.
What was/ wasnt fitted to the a/c is only relevant in regard to its release to service and what was fitted on the day.(some will tell, some wont, as to why or not ...well thats history...).
The Mk2 release to service was not fit for purpose depending on which version you read. A whole host of people with varying ranks were party to this but won't admit to it, and that stems from 1988 I do believe. Its history...
For more recent if you cannnot see the blatant de-lamination of the control panel as being a factor in this incident. my bias (as I witnessed 36hours before this a/c took off)...then yep thats history..
As for the incumbents on the engineering side, when it goes to any level above chief/Sgt, who cares, they had a part to play, but not on the day, the rest is History.
The a/c hit the Mull because, from inception through to release, it was an ill thought out aircraft on an unfit for purpose sortie, and the procedures and engineering did not back up the release. In my opinion huge mistakes were made from Air level down, but at the end of the day the a/c was not fit for purpose. The crew most certainly were.
The nitty gritty is not relevant. And would hazard to add the fact the control pallet had delaminated 36hrs before is also not relevant, but may have been, nor were the prawn volovents... but they may also have been...
There in a nutshell...

And mods, you have removed me from else where on this site, please feel free to remove me from here, I have asked on three previous occassions to be removed.
Winch-control is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 09:32
  #7544 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 56
Posts: 2
Well there's a thing

"Incidentally, as this UFCM was subsequent to the BofI for ZD576, I assume it could be considered by the MoD to be 'new evidence'?"
Anyone who has followed this thread should realise the significance of this post; this campaign has been knocked back by the MOD time and time again for it's lack of new evidence.
Brian, is it a nice cover for someone like James Arbuthnot to gently prod his Party about?

WillWho is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 20:25
  #7545 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,867

Meadowbank is correct. It is equally important to consider whether the BoI knew about previous Chinook crashes caused by UFCMs.

Boscombe stated in October 1993 that the Mk2 should not be released to service without an essential modification being fitted and, lacking the same mod, the Mk1 RTS was invalid; something they had advised of at least 4 years before as a direct result of previous crashes.

That is, an ESSENTIAL safety modification had not yet been developed, never mind trialled, approved, manufactured and fitted to either the Mk1 or Mk2, 2 weeks before ACAS said the aircraft was safe and stating no ESSENTIAL mods were outstanding.

I'm sure Lord Philip will be asking why this gem was apparently ignored by (or withheld from) all inquiries.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2011, 09:45
  #7546 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
So, bearing in mind, the RAF & MoD(PE) hierarchy would have known all about the 1992 Review and these outstanding ESSENTIAL safety modifications, what did the Chief Engineer, Controller Aircraft, AOCinC STC, ACAS, the Air Force Board and all their staff do? Unless someone comes clean then we will have to assume they did nowt!!
I wonder what Lord Philip will make of that?


CHK240 pse check PM's TVM
flipster is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2011, 07:36
  #7547 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Hopefully, he will cut through all the waffle to what is pertinent to this crash.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2011, 08:07
  #7548 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
.....by ignoring fantasies about 'sirens' in black overalls with PRC112s luring ZD576 onto the rocks of the Mull, as part of a great, preplanned MI5 action to wipe out the majority of NI Int and RUC Spec Branch??

(sorry couldn't resist!)
flipster is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2011, 11:05
  #7549 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. John's Wood
Posts: 289
From the links supplied in meadowbank's post at #7604 (dated 20th Jan 2011 13:54):
After months of investigation and extensive research, testing, and analysis, the cause of this accident has never been determined. The Army Safety Center, the CCAD Investigative Analysis Unit, and Boeing continue to monitor and evelauate all CH-47 flight-control anomalies to determine the cause of this accident and take corrective actions.
That entire incident makes uncomfortable reading. And the quote above seems to indicate that they need more incidents/accidents to occur in order to have enough evidence to "take corrective actions". Blinkin' 'eck!

John Purdey:
Nor shall I [be contributing to this forum again]. JP
Fibber! You've said that before, but you keep coming back. Unfortunately.
Abbey Road is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 11:11
  #7550 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Funny how even in jest you contribute to the confusion – <<... preplanned MI5 action ...>>
why would MI5 take out its own?
Perhaps you should brush up on your history – who was it that was involved in the negotiations with the IRA in the 6 months prior to this (convenient) crash?

The waffle of airworthiness (whatever) is what I was referring to – it would not matter if this a/c had been held together with duct tape, that they had been lucky to have gotten that far, that it was odds on that they would have crashed before they got to Ft George – what matters is that the a/c was under control right up to the point of impact and that, despite knowingly approaching a point on the Mull, they were surprised by just how close they had got.
The detailed arguments supporting these statements I have given before, often.
For an experienced crew to have got into that situation, I proposed that they had to have had some reference in which they had reason to trust and yet which misled them; I proposed equipment that referred to a PRC112 must have been on board – and subsequently had it confirmed that this had been the case (QED as it were).
The CPLS as a whole is intrinsically reliable in its practical use but the handset on the ground being half a mile or so further up the hill than the HLS where the crew thought it was explains everything that is known about this crash.
That the existence of such equipment that offered an explanation was not even mentioned in previous inquiries, further that on such a forum as this it has been a taboo subject for so long, says a lot about just how free to think, let alone speak out, we really are.

It's nothing to joke about flipster, they were your colleagues and it was your country.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 15:38
  #7551 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370

Yes, it has been confirmed that PRC112 was fitted but:

1. Did the crew even switch it on?
2. Was there anyone on the Mull transmitting?
dalek is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 15:59
  #7552 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 73
Posts: 1,745

The other question is:-

"Where is their written authorisation from Higher Authority to carry out such a procedure whilst carrying Passengers".

Any such authorisation would have specified weather minima for such a demonstration.
cazatou is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 16:50
  #7553 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012

the a/c was under control right up to the point of impact
Presumably you have evidence that this is the case?

Thought not.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 16:54
  #7554 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 77
Posts: 635
Fitter - don't be silly dear boy!!

the a/c was under control right up to the point of impact

Presumably you have evidence that this is the case?

Thought not.
and vice versa and so on and so on and so on..............................
bast0n is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2011, 18:58
  #7555 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Dear Walter,

Don't be so daft! I'm not laughing. The whole thing makes me very sad.
What is also rather sad is when people like yourself keep banging their own particular drum so loud that they can't hear others' ideas.

Yes, I think the AW aspect is very important - there is enough evidence to prove without any doubt that the aircraft was not airworthy and totally immature. I also happen to beleive that the widely differing appreciations of the weather is key and with it, the concept of LL helo ops in such weather (and a few other points of note). I also happen to accept I don't know everything and could be very wrong.

Yes, CPLS was probably fitted to ZD576 (well done) but that doesn't make it a dead cert that the crew were lured to their death doing a demo of the kit (for whose benefit, I'm not sure?). Caz is right, anything like that should made it to the auth sheets (along with a whole host of other reasons why your theory has holes in it).

There are so many facets to this conundrum but I don't stop seeing others' POV just because I happen to believe that the crew and the pax shouldn't have been flying in the Mk2 at all! The ac was in theatre just because some senior numpties ignored the strongest possible objections to it's release to service - who is negligent in this case? Those who advised, those who signed, those who tasked or those who flew?

Many of us here agree that the crew could have porked it up on the day but we certainly don't know 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. What makes you so sure you do?

And what gives you the right to make assumptions about the level of control leading up to the crash, as Baston is absolutely right to point out?

Of course, most of us who are open-minded accept that we don't know what actually happened and what killed them - never will! Which is why why your repeated assertions that you alone know the answer have become irritating beyond. Now, be a good chap and stop that banging, please.

Cordially yours,

As for history lessons, I would take your own advice.

Last edited by flipster; 4th Feb 2011 at 19:10.
flipster is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2011, 01:39
  #7556 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Anyone casually looking in on this thread could be forgiven for likening it to watching washing going around in a tumble dryer.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2011, 08:28
  #7557 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
I see reference to 'Caz' in recent posts - anyone tell me if he has actually managed to answer JB's questions and that I should 'unhide' him?
BOAC is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2011, 12:23
  #7558 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,636

I think that you can safely assume that, in the unlikely event that Caz tries to answer JB's questions, it will provoke some further discussion on the topic here.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2011, 12:31
  #7559 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,241
Just came across this elsewhere on PPRuNe. It seemed to ring a bell!
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

—Herbert Spencer
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2011, 14:39
  #7560 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Thanks, Pulse - I agree - but why would Caz do something really useful? One is forced to conclude there is something to hide there.
BOAC 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.