Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chug
just a point of detail - why is it you think that the cockpit area was "engulfed"? - it wasn't and, as I have said before, the nature of the impact was quite benign for the instruments.
It remains a possibility that someone on the ground switched the TANS off - it doesn't really matter as far as analysis is concerned by its being switched off at that stage (by hand or by impact) as the data was not lost.
The relevance/value of the data is apparent if you actually work through it to reconstruct the track - if you are unwilling or incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should stop bleating.
The definitive factors apparent from engine settings, rotor RPM (from witness marks on a dial), control positions, and control surface positions are those at impact - there is only one plausible scenario that fits all that is known and that is that they were approaching at an intermediate power level and were surprised at their imminent closing with the ground such that their final (extreme) control inputs, whilst starting a manoeuvre (affecting attitude and increasing blade pitch), were so close to the time of impact that rotor RPM had not dropped.
That is, they had been in a steady approach but were surprised at how close in they had got - and the a/c responded (in the correct sense) to the controls at the initiation of an evasive manoeuvre.
They knew they were approaching the landmass, so why were they surprised? - something had to have been misleading them.
Still in denial?
just a point of detail - why is it you think that the cockpit area was "engulfed"? - it wasn't and, as I have said before, the nature of the impact was quite benign for the instruments.
It remains a possibility that someone on the ground switched the TANS off - it doesn't really matter as far as analysis is concerned by its being switched off at that stage (by hand or by impact) as the data was not lost.
The relevance/value of the data is apparent if you actually work through it to reconstruct the track - if you are unwilling or incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should stop bleating.
The definitive factors apparent from engine settings, rotor RPM (from witness marks on a dial), control positions, and control surface positions are those at impact - there is only one plausible scenario that fits all that is known and that is that they were approaching at an intermediate power level and were surprised at their imminent closing with the ground such that their final (extreme) control inputs, whilst starting a manoeuvre (affecting attitude and increasing blade pitch), were so close to the time of impact that rotor RPM had not dropped.
That is, they had been in a steady approach but were surprised at how close in they had got - and the a/c responded (in the correct sense) to the controls at the initiation of an evasive manoeuvre.
They knew they were approaching the landmass, so why were they surprised? - something had to have been misleading them.
Still in denial?
Last edited by walter kennedy; 29th Mar 2011 at 15:54. Reason: addition/corrections
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.
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 19:07.
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.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Heaven help us! Anyone with a white coat in sight?
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!
Nope, it was probably Lee Harvey Oswald, all on his lonesome ............
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...............
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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 19:57. Reason: Correcting iPlayer timing
fresh in on the BBC...
BBC News - New doubt cast over Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash cause
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?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
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 21:02.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There are far bigger fish to fry here.
Post deleted due to greatly oversized pics. Post was not deleted by poster as requested.
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?
