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 30th Aug 2003, 19:05
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
JP

Not only did "various crews make protest at the time", JT spent the whole of his time on that fatefull detatchment arguing that the Mk2 should not be sent to NI until properly 'released', allowing for full use of it's fliight envelope. He was also deeply concerned, as were the rest of the Chinook Det at the time, about the aircrews ability to operate the Mk2 considering the time elapsed between short conversion and Mk2 arival in theatre.

Without wishing to appear snidy I am surprised you were not aware of this.

Yours M134
M134 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 20:24
  #742 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
JP

If you've got the time to read the whole of this and previous threads, you will find out all about the background to my comments.

I do indeed know your views, and respect them. I, and others, however find it hard to blame the dead without proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that it should rest with them. I have said before, John, that none of us here deny that negligence was a possible cause. It simply has not been proved.

Try for size the fact that the woeful icing clearance of the Chinook Mk2 restricted their flight that day to 2500ft in the area of the Mull (the 4degree isotherm), well below MSA and quite likely a factor in their route choice.

There were many other shortcomings in both the aircraft, and the SH world's command and control structure which may have been submitted to scrutiny had the blame not been (conveniently) placed squarely on the pilots.

Had the lives of these valuable people not been put at risk by placing them in an aircraft which had not been properly allowed in to service by Boscombe Down, then we would not be having this argument.

All is not black and white here, and we will not go away until we secure a just outcome.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 02:04
  #743 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Ark Royal,

I have indeed been reading the threads, and I have been offering my humble comments, based on a certain amount of flying experience, for over one year.
And we really must not go into all this again. But what I think concerns many of the folk, who, like me, are anxious to see a final conclusion to this whole long and very sad saga is this:
Something like eight or ten possible technical/ electrical/mechanical faults in the aircraft have been put forward (one after the other - and thus of course weakening the validity of all of them) over the past few years as contributing to the tragedy. None of these possible faults can explain the fact that the aircraft carried straight on beyond the Waypoint change, nor can any of them actually explain the crash, particularly since there was no post-crash evidence of any of any of them.
As I have said before, (and I'm sorry to be boring about this) , the explanation of the crash is that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were more than a quarter of a mile to the right of their planned track, and thus (in unambiguous IMC) they faced ground that rose to more than 800 feet instead of the 300 or so feet that they expected .
It really will not do say that one or other of the possible technical factors might just possibly, one way or another, have caused the crash. There must be an explanation. Please tell us WHICH of the many technical and possible explanations you favour, ie the one you think caused the crash; (no ducking and weaving please).
Regards John.
 
Old 1st Sep 2003, 02:34
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Forgive my naievity but isn't the standard procedure on entering cloud below safety altitude to max perform climb to safety altitude. If that climb takes you into controlled airspace then Mode 3A/7700 and call on 243.0 or 121.5. To do less is surely negligent. From what I can glean the aircraft does not appear to have been in max performance climb mode at the point of impact although I do recall John Nichol trying to make the point in Panorama (I think) that the IFF was set to 7700 - he was trying to suggest this meant theuy had a technical problem but as always there is more than one possible explanation for everything!
Impiger is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 03:16
  #745 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Mr Purdey,
your opinion is not boring. It is your opinion, and that's fine.

You have consistently said that "The crew were not were they thought they were." How can you say that with absolutely no doubt whatsoever? No-one knows what Rick and Jon were thinking.

The mere fact that so many different points of view have stemmed from the same small pieces of factual evidence must suggest that the absolutely no doubt whatsoever requirement has fallen woefully short of the mark.

This in itself undermines the verdict. A much more satisfactory and accurate verdict should be "Not Positively Determined

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 03:58
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: work
Posts: 32
JP

I accept at the piont of impact they were in IMC however no one can say what their flight conditions were before a couple of seconds to run.

M134
M134 is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 14:22
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
John Purdey - and what if the crew were not where they thought they were due to insidious drift or intereference to the nav kit? Interference from any one of a number of Plod radios or mobile phones has been ruled out 'beyond all possible doubt' has it?

No - this is clearly 'Not Positively Determined'. I watched Rifkind savaging Bliar's spin-ridden government the other day on TV; the only real hope for a just outcome would seem to require a new SoSDef - and people like Arbuthnot and Rifkind being given a bigger audience.
BEagle is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 19:29
  #748 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
Jp,

No ducking or weaving, I don't favour any of the possible alternatives, they cannot be proven beyond any doubt any more than the verdict arrived at by their airships.

That's the whole point, is it not?

No proof = no finding.

Impiger, you are correct, but see my last post, and many others in the past. If the piece of rubbish you are flying has not been released into service with a clearance to fly in icing conditions, then you cannot climb into IMC and continue IFR. Just another problem on the plates of two pilots facing who knows what else.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 20:43
  #749 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Beagle; indeed, and it seems very likely that there was an element of drift and one of nav kit error, but the reason why we climb to safety altitude in IMC is surely so that possible errors like that can be discounted?
M134. A couple of seconds does not account for the fact that they surely could see the very poor conditions ahead? (The lighthouse keeper, you may recall, said the vis at his position was about 20 yards).
Brian Dixon. Much admire your determination and loyalty to the unfortunate crew, but two of the vital facts for which you search are surely: a. that they were in IMC, and b. the point of impact.
Impeger. All those who have commented on the events seem to agree that the a/c was in a cruise climb.
There does seem to be an awful lot of repetition in all this. Perhaps some contributers might read back over the (very extensive) previous posts? Regards as always. John Purdey.
 
Old 1st Sep 2003, 21:27
  #750 (permalink)  
vincit veritas
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 35
JP

You are always suggesting that contributors to this forum should read back over the (very extensive) previous posts. Surely it is you that should be doing that... and also reading and digesting the findings of the many investigations that have taken place over the past nine years. None of which have supported the views of the AMs. Let me remind you:

March 1996 Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry
May 1999 Computer Weekly Report on FADEC
February 2000 Publication of the National Audit Office report - Accepting Equipment Off-Contract and Into Service
June 2000 Debate on the accident called by Martin Bell MP and heard in Westminster Hall
November 2000 Publication of the 45th Public Accounts Committee Report in which the MoD are accused of 'Breathtaking Arrogance'
February 2002 Final Report of the Lords Select Committee published. They unanimously agree that the Air Marshals were not justified in finding negligence on the part of the pilots.

I have total confidence in the findings of the above investigations. I find it difficult to understand why you do not share the same confidence - especially as you seem to be a very experienced aviator.

Am I missing something?
XM147 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 03:08
  #751 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
JP:
but the reason why we climb to safety altitude in IMC is surely so that possible errors like that can be discounted
Do you have a problem understanding that a climb was not possible within the aircraft's limitations? No ducking or weaving now!

XM147 is in tune with the rest of us, and the various eminent investigative bodies he mentions.

What DID cause the tragedy is irrelevant to the argument, as there is not, and never will be, proof to the required standard of ANY cause.

It is simply unjust, immoral and counter to the RAF rules in force at the time of the finding, to allow the finding of Gross Negligence to stand, as it was arrived at without the necessary proof.

Simple innit?
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 06:31
  #752 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,893
Ark,

Concur.

John Purdey. Here you are again banging your old drum, despite having promised us your final comment on at least a couple of occasions before when the discussion didn't go your way.

Perhaps you will answer these two questions? I have asked you at least once before but got no answer.

Firstly, what is your motive to have the blame pinned on these two pilots?

Secondly, HOW do you KNOW without any doubt what the pilots were thinking in the few seconds before the accident?

Finally, are you really who you say you are? I see you still have no details in your profile.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 18:18
  #753 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

ArkRoyal, OK, in this case climb or turn left we have discussed this before.
ShyTorque, Banging on because we are hearing the same repetitions from others! Not keen to 'pin the blame on the pilots'; nobody likes it. But what all the refs quoted by XM147 amount to saying is that we don't know what caused this accident. I do not believe this is good enough from a Service that has the very high standards that we have, especially when even the original BofI said (I do not have the exact wording in front of me) that there was a matter of airmanship involved. It is my belief, and that of many others, that there certainly was a matter of airmanship involved. JP.
 
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 00:28
  #754 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,893
You said:

"It is my belief, and that of many others, that there certainly was a matter of airmanship involved".

But there was inconclusive EVIDENCE, which is what is normally required.

I make no excuses for saying the following again - It is quite obvious that there are two "beliefs" involved here.

One "belief" is that it is acceptable to convict two deceased aircrew on inconclusive evidence because there is no other way of explaining the accident.

The other "belief" is that it is NOT acceptable.

You pinned your colours to the mast some time ago, and repeatedly come back to this webpage to bang on about it. But you say you do not want to pin the blame?

Sorry, that just doesn't fit.

The official verdict of the MOD IS that the pilots WERE grossly negligent, so why do you feel you have to keep trying to persuade others that this is the correct case? You seem to be on a crusade to get us to drop the matter.....for reasons which I find difficult to understand. That is the reason I suspect you might not be quite who you claim to be.

Again, at least for the third time of asking. How do you KNOW what the crew were thinking? You do not KNOW, no-one knows, and no-one can ever know what they were thinking. Your repetition of this, quite frankly, is ridiculous.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 03:16
  #755 (permalink)  
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Hi Mr Purdey.

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I am determined (although some say more irritating than determined!). I also firmly believe in loyalty (both ways).

Like M134, I would agree that at the time of impact, the aircraft was in IMC, however I again say that no-one knows what went on prior to that.

Furthermore, I would again make the point that the lighthouse keeper was stood in the cloud and not looking at it from the same point as the crew (unlike the much ignored Mr Holbrook).

My best, as always.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 17:18
  #756 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

Brian, yes, but there were other folk up on the hills who confirmed the poor conditions. But many thanks for your balanced comments over the past months. ShyTorqe, Not trying to persuade others, merely unable to understand how the aircraft's progress beyond the waypoint change at low level and towards cloud-covered hills can be seen as other than an airmanship question. Meanwhile, no-one is persuading anyone. Is there really anything more to say?
As to who I am, does that matter? But I can assure you that I am not one of the AMs or an ex-member of their staffs, and nor am I MOD (heaven forbid!)
With all good wishes and professional respect, John Purdey.
 
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 18:56
  #757 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,168
But what all the refs quoted by XM147 amount to saying is that we don't know what caused this accident. I do not believe this is good enough from a Service that has the very high standards that we have
Indeed, JP.

So you believe that to uphold the high standards of the service, the truth must be bent, evidence invented, witnesses ignored and the strict rules designed to uphold the said standard brushed aside.

Why can't you accept that the cause will never be determined? That is what the original BoI concluded, yet you still seem quite happy to leave a stain on the characters of two of (I guess) your former colleagues, without a shred of conclusive evidence.

I hope for your sake you never find yourself in a similar kangaroo court, either alive or dead.
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 19:41
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,737
'......can be seen as other than an airmanship question. Meanwhile, no-one is persuading anyone'

A 'question' perhaps. Which is very far indeed from 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'.

NOT POSITIVELY DETERMINED can be the only finding. Perhaps it's just that, by declaring 'Gross Negligence', MoD is able to wriggle off the hook of liability for corporate manslaughter and the costs thereof?
BEagle is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 19:45
  #759 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,893
JP,

There is a large difference between being unable to understand what happened and going on to accuse the crew of gross negligence.

There are a number of scenarios, which COULD have resulted in the accident, all of them speculation, but equally as valid in the absence of solid evidence. As the BOI stated.

Quote from your last post: "Is there any more to say?"

Your opinion is in line with that of the MOD. So why are you still eager to make your point that the pilots were entirely to blame?

IMHO, there was almost certainly negligence further up the chain. That particular aircraft, or any other Mk2, should NOT have been flying that sortie, or any other at the time. The pilots, although they possibly made mistakes of their own, paid the ultimate price for those management chain errors. They were then spitefully castigated by the management that they had perhaps been perceived to have "let down". Disgraceful stuff.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 21:08
  #760 (permalink)  
John Purdey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK

If you read my last posting again, you will see that what I said was 'unable to understand how it can be seen as other than....' in other words, unable to understand how anyone can see/judge it as, say, technical failure, rather than a question of airmanship.
Sorry if that was not clear first time round.
Meanwhile, I really do not think there is more to be said. Way back, we had already agreed to disagree.
Regards JP
 

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.