Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
and missed the bigger picture?
Full details were submitted to him, including Ministerial denials dated 2005 when specifically warned of the failings noted the following year by ACM loader in the XV230 BoI report.
I hope General Cowan is reading this. If anyone knows him tell him to get in touch.
If a document is held in the HoC library, I suggest the best way to obtain it is ask one's MP. MoD are unlikely to release it given the damning evidence it contains against senior staffs, past and present. (One assumes they no longer deny it exists!).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France Flight 447
It is now two years since Flight 447 was lost in the South Atlantic.
Its loss generated quite a few entries on this thread. A lot of it centred on what the Chinook crew were saying in the final moments before impact.
One of our self proclaimed "experts", a certain Mr Purdey stated at the time " what were they saying, what does it matter...."
Air France have spent millions on trying to locate the ADR and CVR and it seems their persistance has paid off. Within a few weeks they hope to establish the cause of the accident.
Do Air France consider the CVR less important than the ADR? Let me quote Air France chief executive Pierre-Henri Gourgeon.
"Finding the Cockpit Voice Recorder is yet another decisive step forward in the enquiry."
John Purdey, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
Its loss generated quite a few entries on this thread. A lot of it centred on what the Chinook crew were saying in the final moments before impact.
One of our self proclaimed "experts", a certain Mr Purdey stated at the time " what were they saying, what does it matter...."
Air France have spent millions on trying to locate the ADR and CVR and it seems their persistance has paid off. Within a few weeks they hope to establish the cause of the accident.
Do Air France consider the CVR less important than the ADR? Let me quote Air France chief executive Pierre-Henri Gourgeon.
"Finding the Cockpit Voice Recorder is yet another decisive step forward in the enquiry."
John Purdey, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
Last edited by dalek; 8th May 2011 at 14:18.
dalek:
Out of the mouths of retired Air Marshals.....You are quite right to instance that revealing outburst Dalek, for it encapsulates perfectly the contempt for everything that Flight Safety, Air Accident Investigation and Airworthiness Regulations stood for, ie the methodical, institutional, and procedural application of good practise as evolved over the generations and as ruthlessly crushed and discarded from the early eighties.
That Haddon-Cave saw the nineties as a golden age of airworthiness provision is laughable, and is a comment on him as much as on the little helpers from the Ministry that no doubt scripted such a falsehood.
One of our self proclaimed "experts", a certain Mr Purdey stated at the time " what were they saying, what does it matter...."
That Haddon-Cave saw the nineties as a golden age of airworthiness provision is laughable, and is a comment on him as much as on the little helpers from the Ministry that no doubt scripted such a falsehood.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 8th May 2011 at 11:47. Reason: attribution, attribution, attribution
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H-C's Golden Period
Also, during the "golden period", and following the loss of Nimrod XW666 in May 1995, it was recommended that alloy hydraulic pipe unions be replaced with stainless steel alternatives. This recommendation was rejected on grounds of costs. The crew of XV230 lost control of the aircraft" as pipe unions melted", and primary and backup hydraulic systems failed.
Again, following the loss of XW666, it was recommended that a Cockpit Voice Recorder be installed in Nimrod aircraft. This too was rejected on grounds of costs.
DV
Again, following the loss of XW666, it was recommended that a Cockpit Voice Recorder be installed in Nimrod aircraft. This too was rejected on grounds of costs.
DV
TR
What would probably have been more valuable, is an Office Voice Recorder!
In June 1990, when AMSO's policy to run down airworthiness funding and activities was really beginning to bite, I was given very good advice by an officer who later became an Admiral. If someone lies to you, record all subsequent conversations.
This was at a meeting I'd convened to arbitrate between the RN Operators (FONAC staff) and RAF suppliers (i.e. the non-engineers who had been allowed to overrule engineering safety decisions, alluded to later in the CHART report). The former were furious that the latter had refused funding to investigate smoke in cockpits that resulted in aircrew being hospitalised following heavy landings. (They were ok). AMSO stood their ground, insisting the RN simply ground their entire fleet and come back next year, beg for a few pennies and take their chances. The senior RN officer slapped a tape recorder on the table. The suppliers demonstrated the top-cover they had (DGSM) by standing their ground.
I cancelled a non-safety related RAF contract (Hoffman LW TACAN if I recall) to generate funding to make safe the RN aircraft. This was a routine occurrence at the time. The advice stood me in good stead, but just be wary of the cheapo audio/mic jammers MoD use. Best to use a "modern" digital recorder (MD or flash). If you use a tape recorder the background noise sounds like an old Gestetner copying machine.
Last edited by tucumseh; 11th May 2011 at 04:57.
Ah, the good old AN/ANQ-2! What an advance it was on the ANQ1 and the need to be forever replacing a full wax cylinder with a fresh one 
Personally I'd trade them both simply to be a fly on the wall in the offices where, as Tandemrotor so rightly infers, many airworthiness related fatal accidents were gestated rather than in their various cockpits. Almost every confrontation therein lost to the Forces of Evil eventually meant more lives lost in turn. Cause and effect!
Personally I'd trade them both simply to be a fly on the wall in the offices where, as Tandemrotor so rightly infers, many airworthiness related fatal accidents were gestated rather than in their various cockpits. Almost every confrontation therein lost to the Forces of Evil eventually meant more lives lost in turn. Cause and effect!
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV?
Did you remove the CHART link - or was it someone else? It is not 'illegal' or such, but a shame - since some people have questioned its disappearance.
PPP
Did you remove the CHART link - or was it someone else? It is not 'illegal' or such, but a shame - since some people have questioned its disappearance.
PPP
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you remove the CHART link - or was it someone else?
Chart link
Guys
The link provided is to a file sharing site. If the person who uploaded it has a free account then it is possible the file is simply time expired and the host took it down. Or, the person who uploaded it in the first place took it down.
Nothing sinister here at all.
The link provided is to a file sharing site. If the person who uploaded it has a free account then it is possible the file is simply time expired and the host took it down. Or, the person who uploaded it in the first place took it down.
Nothing sinister here at all.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Covenant
Quote:
"No member of the Armed Forces should be disadvantaged because of their service"
Yet:
BOI: No negligence.
Reviewing Officers: Gross negligence.
FAI: No negligence.
Commons PAC: No negligence.
HOL: No negligence.
I may have missed other reviews.
Outside of the military, where else in this land is one organisation allowed to ride roughshod over the opinions of all the others. Surely JT and RC have been "disadvantaged" solely because they are members of the military.
Brian,
Have you considered this approach. We could then allow LP to concentrate on the Airworthiness issues.
"No member of the Armed Forces should be disadvantaged because of their service"
Yet:
BOI: No negligence.
Reviewing Officers: Gross negligence.
FAI: No negligence.
Commons PAC: No negligence.
HOL: No negligence.
I may have missed other reviews.
Outside of the military, where else in this land is one organisation allowed to ride roughshod over the opinions of all the others. Surely JT and RC have been "disadvantaged" solely because they are members of the military.
Brian,
Have you considered this approach. We could then allow LP to concentrate on the Airworthiness issues.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago, I suggested that the system may have regarded the team on board as an obstacle to the peace process - on the grounds that they were planning to hit the IRA hard and not seeing the need to compromise with terrorism - and so, however unpalatable, the possibility of the crash having been set up required consideration.
None of you on this thread supported that view and indeed some tried to downplay the importance of the team.
Recently, talking to the BBC during the Queen's visit to Ireland, Bertie Ahern enthusiastically mentioned that the one big problem for the Republicans to accept the peace process was the RUC - he said that it had had to have been opened up (restructured/culture change/root and branch sort of scale). This would not have been possible had those on board ZD576 that day remained in their positions.
None of you on this thread supported that view and indeed some tried to downplay the importance of the team.
Recently, talking to the BBC during the Queen's visit to Ireland, Bertie Ahern enthusiastically mentioned that the one big problem for the Republicans to accept the peace process was the RUC - he said that it had had to have been opened up (restructured/culture change/root and branch sort of scale). This would not have been possible had those on board ZD576 that day remained in their positions.
Walter, I can only speak for myself when I say that I do not have much problem with your proposal that there was a situation in the "Peace" negotiations that was affected, for better or worse, by the demise of the 25 passengers that died on that hillside. What I do not accept is the scenario that you draw out of that, which is that a highly qualified and experienced crew permitted themselves to be lured towards rising ground in IMC by a third party on the Mull. Even if their authorisation included such a homing, let alone landing or flyby, to do so into the cloud that enshrouded the Mull that day would have indeed been Gross Negligence.
We have learned much on this thread over recent years, principally that there was Gross Negligence. It was not on that Flight Deck though, but in the labyrinthine corridors and offices of the MOD and the RAF High Command. That is where your conspiracy existed, not one of political manoeuvring but one simply of incompetence and arrogance. Time it was faced up to and measures taken to ensure that UK Military Airworthiness can never be compromised in that way again.
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation It Kills!
We have learned much on this thread over recent years, principally that there was Gross Negligence. It was not on that Flight Deck though, but in the labyrinthine corridors and offices of the MOD and the RAF High Command. That is where your conspiracy existed, not one of political manoeuvring but one simply of incompetence and arrogance. Time it was faced up to and measures taken to ensure that UK Military Airworthiness can never be compromised in that way again.
Self Regulation Never Works and in Aviation It Kills!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug
I take it that my numerous posts describing the most probable appearance of that ground on the day were wasted.
They would have been able to see the landmass the whole way across but the ground texture would have been fogged such that distance to go would have been difficult to judge visually when approaching at speed - higher topographic features would have been totally obscured by the orographic cloud.
Experienced crews have damaged helicopters by misjudging closing distances to featureless turf ridges (eg Falklands) or sand dunes - even to landing in clear weather on a frigate.
And those without a digital readout throwing them off.
The only circumstance whereby an experienced crew would have approached a point on the Mull in those conditions at speed would have been with reference to a local system in which they had trust.
One of the many uses of the PRC112 was to facilitate fast all-weather approaches to LZs, etc. - that's why I deduced that they had the on board CPLS kit.
The set on the ground only had to be 1/2 mile or so up the slope from the LZ to explain everything that is known about this crash.
Conversely, it is evident that they had control at the end (again, I have justified this in numerous posts as well as in full detail in my report) which renders arguments about airworthiness pointless.
Get your head out of the sand.
I take it that my numerous posts describing the most probable appearance of that ground on the day were wasted.
They would have been able to see the landmass the whole way across but the ground texture would have been fogged such that distance to go would have been difficult to judge visually when approaching at speed - higher topographic features would have been totally obscured by the orographic cloud.
Experienced crews have damaged helicopters by misjudging closing distances to featureless turf ridges (eg Falklands) or sand dunes - even to landing in clear weather on a frigate.
And those without a digital readout throwing them off.
The only circumstance whereby an experienced crew would have approached a point on the Mull in those conditions at speed would have been with reference to a local system in which they had trust.
One of the many uses of the PRC112 was to facilitate fast all-weather approaches to LZs, etc. - that's why I deduced that they had the on board CPLS kit.
The set on the ground only had to be 1/2 mile or so up the slope from the LZ to explain everything that is known about this crash.
Conversely, it is evident that they had control at the end (again, I have justified this in numerous posts as well as in full detail in my report) which renders arguments about airworthiness pointless.
Get your head out of the sand.