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 29th Mar 2011, 19:56
  #7621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Yes, in denial and still bleating I'm afraid, Walter. You may put what interpretation you wish on the so called evidence produced by this BoI. It did its job in such a dilatory and slanted way that I do not take any of its evidence as objective or reliable, let alone the conclusions that it came to. Some seem to think that this BoI did as good a job as it could in the circumstances, accept its findings, and only cavil at the revised finding of Messrs W&D. I am not so sanguine I'm afraid and think that it served the deceased, their loved ones, the Chinook HC2 force, and the RAF itself very poorly. Merely not finding the pilots negligent, let alone grossly, is faint praise indeed for what purported to be a Military Air Accident Investigation.
This accident cries out for a professional third party investigation, even this late in the day, to determine what were facts and what were not, what was omitted, and what in particular was the technical state of this aircraft, not only during this flight but from when it was Released To Service into the RAF. Such an inquiry should accept all the evidence pertinent to its job, no matter whether the MOD considers it old, new, true or false. It might indeed wish to consider whether gated switches at OFF in the wreckage, with sooting evidence that they were set thus before the crash, were indeed set then, or by the forces of impact, or by "someone" after the crash but before the sooting occurred. Good luck with that one Walter!
I don't question that the switch's position was irrelevant to the STANS operating. I question the switch's position being seen as irrelevant to the circumstances immediately preceding the crash. As I have said before it seems to me to be a tangible clue left by the pilots themselves. Time that clue was fully considered properly and the message about the HC2 it carries.

Last edited by Chugalug2; 29th Mar 2011 at 20:07.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2011, 21:57
  #7622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 418
RNS252 Switch position

I'm nowhere near my notes right now, but could someone remind me how far the last recorded position in the RNS 252's memory was from the actual crash site.

Tuc did you ever find out the effect of throwing the cockpit switch on position calculation within the RNS 252?

This may shed light on the accidental or deliberate switch debate.
chinook240 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2011, 22:00
  #7623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
C240

No, afraid not. Racal didn't mention it and the BoI didn't pursue the AAIB's assertion. Any Chinook engineer would know. Far too modern an aircraft for me.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2011, 13:37
  #7624 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
nor was it that a highly strung Seal could have leaped into the wreckage moments after the crash (which he had engineered of course) found the switch and turned it OFF, before fire engulfed it and sooted it as OFF thus confusing the issue.
- is this what our Walter is suggesting........!!!!!!!!!!???? Damn clever, those trained Seals - to know exactly where the impact would be. Lucky the guy wasn't killed in the crash really.

Heaven help us! Anyone with a white coat in sight?
BOAC is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2011, 20:24
  #7625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Post deleted due to greatly oversized pics. Post was not deleted by poster as requested.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2011, 00:03
  #7626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
So not just one sweaty Seal screaming in his B+B post impact but he had a mate as well...............
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2011, 11:41
  #7627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. John's Wood
Posts: 289
Walt,

One PPRuNe mod has already deleted an entire thread this week because one photo posted, by the thread originator, was oversize. Your photos are distorting the page - you need to sort it asap otherwise they will likely be in the bin!

So not just one sweaty Seal screaming in his B+B post impact but he had a mate as well...............
Nope, it was probably Lee Harvey Oswald, all on his lonesome ............
Abbey Road is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 17:04
  #7628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
fresh in on the BBC...

BBC News - New doubt cast over Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash cause
On_Loan is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 18:18
  #7629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Also featured on the National News in Radio4's PM and BBC1's 6 O'clock News (about time 11'05" on iPlayer):-

BBC iPlayer - BBC News at Six: 12/04/2011

Congratulations to all who laboured to get this scandal back into the headlines, and here come to that. Makes a change from posts by the Scottish Pot Hole Repairs Study Group at least!

Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Apr 2011 at 20:57. Reason: Correcting iPlayer timing
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 18:22
  #7630 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,192
Correct Abbey Road,

I have PM'd him to make the adjustment ASAP.

The page is almost unreadable with pics at such a large size above 850x850.

PPP
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 20:09
  #7631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 516
fresh in on the BBC...

BBC News - New doubt cast over Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash cause

Just saw it on the main news. A succinct summary of a certain ppruner's last 800 or posts! Well done Sir. Such tenacity.


Surely very serious questions arise. If Spiers did not see the report, who made the decision not show it to him? Did ACAS see it? Group? The pilots? Haddon-Cave? Is this evidence before Lord Philip?
dervish is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 20:52
  #7632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The North
Posts: 90
Wratten and Day about to eat their words, and it's about time. What punishment can they expect?
Fox Four is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 21:32
  #7633 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
To celebrate this outstanding news, may I point out to all those apparently afflicted by some images posted by Walt, that if you place him on your ignore list you cease to be afflicted.

Well done to all those who have laboured long and hard here. Let's see justice done, both for the crew and to those who appear to have 'conspired'.

Last edited by BOAC; 12th Apr 2011 at 22:02.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 22:03
  #7634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
If Spiers did not see the report, who made the decision not show it to him? Did ACAS see it? Group? The pilots? Haddon-Cave? Is this evidence before Lord Philip?

In turn;

Spiers - Of the 3 staff immediately below him (DGA, DHP, AD/HP1), at least two knew of the general problems, evidenced by AD/HP1's memos referred to by the House of Lords inquiry; as did ALL those below AD/HP1. Whether or not they knew of this specific report is another matter.


Group - Almost certainly. I think the distribution list would make this clear, if anyone has it. (Not that any serving officer will admit this, because withholding it carries a prison sentence! Something Air Cdre Baber will attest to).


Pilots - Almost certainly not, because they asked for a Mk1.


Haddon-Cave - Don't know about this specific report, but he was supplied with sufficient complementary evidence. (Not difficult, because the systemic failings - as opposed to isolated failings - were well known follwoing AMSO's June 1987 policy which, ultimately, led to airworthiness funding being slashed and the system being deliberately run down). This report was probably just one of many. I know of those, and have copies, from January 1988, August 1989, June 1993, June 1996, March 1998, January 2000, June 2005....... This makes his suggestion that the problems only commenced in 1998 utterly laughable. As ever, ask who this protects.


Lord Philip - Yes.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 22:15
  #7635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 460
Why was the aircraft well below safety level in IMC? The trip seemed to be planned in very marginal wx for VFR.
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 22:34
  #7636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,875
Croq

I think the point here is that the existence of this report is not intended to explain the crash. Rather, it is evidence of very serious "Organisational Fault", a verdict or contributory factor open to the Board of Inquiry. They failed in their duty to address this factor, despite hearing detailed evidence of systemic airworthiness failings.

To me, this aspect is shameful. Having listed a raft of problems, any reader of their report is left asking "So, what did you do about it? Who is responsible and why are they doing nothing?". As ever, one must ask who this failure protected. (Haddon-Cave provides the answer). None of them were ever interviewed by any inquiry. I wonder what they'll write in their next letter to The Times?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2011, 00:05
  #7637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Croqueteer View Post
Why was the aircraft well below safety level in IMC? The trip seemed to be planned in very marginal wx for VFR.
Remember that song we used to sing as kids "Here we go round the Mullberry Bush"......

What makes you think the aircraft was below safety level in IMC
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2011, 08:11
  #7638 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
SFFP - please do not encourage another outbreak of irrelevance. Generally when an aircraft hits the ground it is below SA. Simple. Croq needs to read the thread.

There are far bigger fish to fry here.
BOAC is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2011, 11:49
  #7639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. John's Wood
Posts: 289
Post deleted due to greatly oversized pics. Post was not deleted by poster as requested.
Walt, you don't make much sense there! "Post deleted" and "not deleted"? Eh? All you had to do was resize the images - you do know how to do that? Or have you deleted the entire post and accompanying images in a fit of pique?

Well done to all those concerned for yesterday's news piece. Great to hear and see. Does anyone feel that the campaign is around the final bend, with the home straight and finishing line in view?

And when can we see the two senior officer pratts, responsible for this injustice, finally face some of their own medicine?
Abbey Road is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2011, 12:24
  #7640 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,192
Abbey Road,

I did not hear from WK about the resizing of the pics so I deleted his post that contained the pics, which made the page more than double width. WK is not the only one who posts and we have to think of those who want to read them.
PPRuNe Pop 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.