Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP - having just plowed through all the 20 pages available I can see that you have a mind that is in need of updating.
To digress slightly but in order to make a point, if I said to you that a man would fall asleep towing a trailer and that at the one second of window of opportunity available, would find a minute gap in miles of fencing and slide down a grassy bank and in a matter of seconds, derail a train which would then remain stable but meet the only set of points in miles that would steer the locomotive into an oncoming express that shouldn't have been there anyway, would the faint possibility of a Chinooks possible locking of controls at a critical moment have any relevance to a verdict of not sufficient evidence?
yours,
B J
Ex RAF but a simple private pilot that believes in the truth and not supposition based on prejudice.
To digress slightly but in order to make a point, if I said to you that a man would fall asleep towing a trailer and that at the one second of window of opportunity available, would find a minute gap in miles of fencing and slide down a grassy bank and in a matter of seconds, derail a train which would then remain stable but meet the only set of points in miles that would steer the locomotive into an oncoming express that shouldn't have been there anyway, would the faint possibility of a Chinooks possible locking of controls at a critical moment have any relevance to a verdict of not sufficient evidence?
yours,
B J
Ex RAF but a simple private pilot that believes in the truth and not supposition based on prejudice.
Just a numbered other
Jp:
A view you are perfectly entitled to hold.
However, what is it that prevents you from seeing that your assumptions do not equate to proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that they are correct?
You can believe what you want, but the finding of gross negligence against these pilots can never be upheld in accordance with the RAF's own rules on that alone. EVIDENCE man.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
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.
However, what is it that prevents you from seeing that your assumptions do not equate to proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that they are correct?
You can believe what you want, but the finding of gross negligence against these pilots can never be upheld in accordance with the RAF's own rules on that alone. EVIDENCE man.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Aviate1138
Not really; the negligence occured when, and because, the crew carried on towards the the hills in obvious IMC conditions. Nothing to do with the several alleged and unproven technical errors.
ArkRoyal;
Well, at least we agree that we are each entitled to our own opinions. You know mine, and I know yours. Meanwhile, and as I stated a couple of days ago, there really is no more to be said about this whole very sad tragedy (you will also note that my finger did not slip this time!)
Goodbye, for the last time, and with all professional best wishes. John Purdey
Not really; the negligence occured when, and because, the crew carried on towards the the hills in obvious IMC conditions. Nothing to do with the several alleged and unproven technical errors.
ArkRoyal;
Well, at least we agree that we are each entitled to our own opinions. You know mine, and I know yours. Meanwhile, and as I stated a couple of days ago, there really is no more to be said about this whole very sad tragedy (you will also note that my finger did not slip this time!)
Goodbye, for the last time, and with all professional best wishes. John Purdey
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey,
if this is your last time, may I thank you for your contributions. A courteous and sound argument, lacking (if I may, with respect, use such a word) only in achieving the required standard of proof.
I shall continue my endeavours.
I wish you well.
Respectfully,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
if this is your last time, may I thank you for your contributions. A courteous and sound argument, lacking (if I may, with respect, use such a word) only in achieving the required standard of proof.
I shall continue my endeavours.
I wish you well.
Respectfully,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Brian Dixon,.....and thanks for your courteous efforts, and as I said before, I admire your determination. One very last thought occurs to me; in an odd way my contributions may perhaps have helped to cristalise your arguments for your future endevours (such as before a new Secretary of State!!??), even though as you know I do not share them. Regards and best wishes. John Purdey.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZD576 Navigation
Come on all you RAF Helo pilots that did the NI - Scotland run, your silence on this topic is profound!
Did you not use the DME function of the Macrihanish TACAN for getting up close and personal with the Mull?
Did you get adequate performance at low level from the TACAN at the aerodrome (Ch 116 civil at present) when approaching the Mull?
Or was ch107 (the one actually selected by ZD576's TACAN CU at the time) a temporary location on higher ground specifically to aid the regular flight plan used by such flights?
It would only take one of you to have the courage to answer this and the truth would come out; not only would the pilots be rightly cleared but also the real investigation into the responsibility for this disaster could begin.
Did you not use the DME function of the Macrihanish TACAN for getting up close and personal with the Mull?
Did you get adequate performance at low level from the TACAN at the aerodrome (Ch 116 civil at present) when approaching the Mull?
Or was ch107 (the one actually selected by ZD576's TACAN CU at the time) a temporary location on higher ground specifically to aid the regular flight plan used by such flights?
It would only take one of you to have the courage to answer this and the truth would come out; not only would the pilots be rightly cleared but also the real investigation into the responsibility for this disaster could begin.
walter K
I refer to my previous post (now a long way back). Machrihanish as a military base was in the process of closing down. They had already pulled the plug on all or most of the radar services - which we only found out a day or two before on arriving for a radar service. Unfortunately I can't answer for TACAN/DME - Walter Wessex didn't have much on the electronic nav aid side of things at that stage - but that could just have easily been switched off even as the crew were using/relying on it!
Did you not use the DME function of the Macrihanish TACAN for getting up close and personal with the Mull?
Just a numbered other
walter (still in OZ!)
Not quite up with your banter old man, but should all those RAF (and RN!!) pilots out there admit to their
it would be more likely to hinder the case rather than
It was a VFR flight after all, and the DME, even if it had a signal in that location (which I doubt), would only ever be a secondary source of nav info.
It's just another blind alley. The real point is still that the RAF broke its own rules by coming to a finding without a shred of credible evidence.
Not quite up with your banter old man, but should all those RAF (and RN!!) pilots out there admit to their
use the DME function of the Machrihanish TACAN for getting up close and personal with the Mull
the pilots be rightly cleared
It's just another blind alley. The real point is still that the RAF broke its own rules by coming to a finding without a shred of credible evidence.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal
Thanks for your input (still working on that trip but am running a bit late in the season!). Here's some food for thought:
From Boeing document which analyses the flight in great technical detail and which I recommend that you download and read in full
8-7D20-DSS-0306, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18, 2002
<<In light of the actual flight path that was followed, however, this discussion becomes moot. For, as shown in the previous discussions, instead of turning left to follow the directed course of ~12 degrees True to Waypoint B, the flight crew elected to turn right on a course of 26 degrees True. At the aircraft position corresponding to the last steeringcommand calculation, the cross-track error to the directed flight path would have been ~0.16nm. This turn should not be considered as being the consequence of allowing the flight path to drift, as there was a clear aircraft heading change made, and the heading change was into the wind, rather than with the wind, which would have been more likely if the turn was purely due to drift. Consequently, the real issue that should be addressed with respect to the aircraft horizontal flight path is why this right turn was made.
A possible answer can be determined from the setting of the TACAN Control Unit (CU), this was set to Channel 107x, which is the channel for the TACAN beacon at RAF Macrihanish. If the flight path of the aircraft is extrapolated from the position of the
aircraft corresponding to the last steering command calculation, along the course it was then following, the flight path arrives at RAF Macrihanish, although not on a direct course to the TACAN beacon. This information provides a possible explanation for the
right turn, but does not explain why this turn was made. It is possible that the flight crew had determined from the existing weather conditions that continuation of the flight plan
under VFR rules was no longer possible, and that they were transitioning to IFR conditions using the Macrihanish beacon for direction. Certainly, making this turn placed the aircraft flight path across the highest points of the local terrain, with the sectional map showing the terrain rising to ~1500ft before it descends at Macrihanish. >>
Don’t you think that this suggests the possibility that they had a useful signal?
Boeing puts the altitude during the approach at better than 600ft.
What could put this argument to bed – or develop it – would be if someone retraced the approach in a light aircraft equipped with DME and found out for sure.
Better would be the word of a RAF pilot who did this (regular) run.
The simplistic rule for DME is that you need line of sight for a useful signal – but, having had some experience as a radio engineer with the CAA, with regard to the topography in this case and that a “strong” signal is transmitted by the ground equipment, a severely attenuated but possibly still useful signal may have been obtained; this would certainly be marginal but why doesn’t someone clear this up? It is, after all, a nice area for a jaunt for anyone who flies in the general area anyway.
A little story for you:
When I went over to the UK purposefully at the time of the FAI, I spoke to the lighthouse keeper. We were standing part way up the slope between the lighthouse and the crash site at a point where below us we could see the sea/lighthouse but around us and above there was thick mist. A helicopter came in very close and turned very near us – we could feel it but we could not see it. “They do that all the time” he said; “They turn over that big rock” he said pointing to a prominent feature right on the shoreline. Now, I don't not believe that you come in that close in those conditions without using some reliable primary aid.
The TANS would not have been trusted and ZD576 did not have radar.
Ask SAR helicopter pilots what navaid they would use under these circumstances and you will see my point.
Thanks for your input (still working on that trip but am running a bit late in the season!). Here's some food for thought:
From Boeing document which analyses the flight in great technical detail and which I recommend that you download and read in full
8-7D20-DSS-0306, Enclosure 4
Dated: June 18, 2002
<<In light of the actual flight path that was followed, however, this discussion becomes moot. For, as shown in the previous discussions, instead of turning left to follow the directed course of ~12 degrees True to Waypoint B, the flight crew elected to turn right on a course of 26 degrees True. At the aircraft position corresponding to the last steeringcommand calculation, the cross-track error to the directed flight path would have been ~0.16nm. This turn should not be considered as being the consequence of allowing the flight path to drift, as there was a clear aircraft heading change made, and the heading change was into the wind, rather than with the wind, which would have been more likely if the turn was purely due to drift. Consequently, the real issue that should be addressed with respect to the aircraft horizontal flight path is why this right turn was made.
A possible answer can be determined from the setting of the TACAN Control Unit (CU), this was set to Channel 107x, which is the channel for the TACAN beacon at RAF Macrihanish. If the flight path of the aircraft is extrapolated from the position of the
aircraft corresponding to the last steering command calculation, along the course it was then following, the flight path arrives at RAF Macrihanish, although not on a direct course to the TACAN beacon. This information provides a possible explanation for the
right turn, but does not explain why this turn was made. It is possible that the flight crew had determined from the existing weather conditions that continuation of the flight plan
under VFR rules was no longer possible, and that they were transitioning to IFR conditions using the Macrihanish beacon for direction. Certainly, making this turn placed the aircraft flight path across the highest points of the local terrain, with the sectional map showing the terrain rising to ~1500ft before it descends at Macrihanish. >>
Don’t you think that this suggests the possibility that they had a useful signal?
Boeing puts the altitude during the approach at better than 600ft.
What could put this argument to bed – or develop it – would be if someone retraced the approach in a light aircraft equipped with DME and found out for sure.
Better would be the word of a RAF pilot who did this (regular) run.
The simplistic rule for DME is that you need line of sight for a useful signal – but, having had some experience as a radio engineer with the CAA, with regard to the topography in this case and that a “strong” signal is transmitted by the ground equipment, a severely attenuated but possibly still useful signal may have been obtained; this would certainly be marginal but why doesn’t someone clear this up? It is, after all, a nice area for a jaunt for anyone who flies in the general area anyway.
A little story for you:
When I went over to the UK purposefully at the time of the FAI, I spoke to the lighthouse keeper. We were standing part way up the slope between the lighthouse and the crash site at a point where below us we could see the sea/lighthouse but around us and above there was thick mist. A helicopter came in very close and turned very near us – we could feel it but we could not see it. “They do that all the time” he said; “They turn over that big rock” he said pointing to a prominent feature right on the shoreline. Now, I don't not believe that you come in that close in those conditions without using some reliable primary aid.
The TANS would not have been trusted and ZD576 did not have radar.
Ask SAR helicopter pilots what navaid they would use under these circumstances and you will see my point.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all.
Now that the Summer Recess and Party Conference season has come to an end, the campaign will, again, gear back up to take the fight to the House of Commons (not that we haven't been busy in the meantime).
To that end, the campaign group is to have a strategy meeting at the end of this month. I will advise you all as to what is discussed and where we go from here. I will be pushing for a group action similar to the previous EDM (or other such action) so look out for the call to arms when it arrives. Your support is vital.
Alternatively, MoD and Mr Hoon - you could save yourselves a lot of work if you simply remove the unsustainable verdict from the records of Jon and Rick.
Regards, as always
Brian
Now that the Summer Recess and Party Conference season has come to an end, the campaign will, again, gear back up to take the fight to the House of Commons (not that we haven't been busy in the meantime).
To that end, the campaign group is to have a strategy meeting at the end of this month. I will advise you all as to what is discussed and where we go from here. I will be pushing for a group action similar to the previous EDM (or other such action) so look out for the call to arms when it arrives. Your support is vital.
Alternatively, MoD and Mr Hoon - you could save yourselves a lot of work if you simply remove the unsustainable verdict from the records of Jon and Rick.
Regards, as always
Brian
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Walter
Love to, but I don't think it would prove anything, for several reasons:
1. At the time of the accident the MAZ TACAN was operational. Now it's a civil DME, albeit on the same frequency but for sure it will have different operating parameters such as power levels etc
2. You can't assume that a DME receiver in a particular light aircraft will perform in a similar way to the equipment in ZD576. On the whole I'd expect the light a/c to have worse reception but the point is you just couldn't possibly make any assumptions.
3. It's not known exactly what height ZD576 was flying at when the supposed DME signal was received. Even a 50ft height change could make the difference between receiving and not receiving the DME signal
4. The old TACAN and the current DME are in significantly different locations - the TACAN was 2nm west of where the VOR/DME is now. Again, if anything one would expect that to mean the DME is less receivable from low level off the Mull of Kintyre than the TACAN was, but you just can't make assumptions.
I do think, though, that the Boeing study raises one of the key questions of the ZD576 mystery, and that is, why did they make that heading correction to the right?
and annuvver fing:
Just because you're in fog on the ground doesn't mean your unseen helicopter pilot can't see anything. The key is in what the keeper told you - "they turn over that big rock". As far as I'm aware there ain't no navaid on that rock. So how do they know to turn over it? Because they can SEE it.
What could put this argument to bed – or develop it – would be if someone retraced the approach in a light aircraft equipped with DME and found out for sure.
1. At the time of the accident the MAZ TACAN was operational. Now it's a civil DME, albeit on the same frequency but for sure it will have different operating parameters such as power levels etc
2. You can't assume that a DME receiver in a particular light aircraft will perform in a similar way to the equipment in ZD576. On the whole I'd expect the light a/c to have worse reception but the point is you just couldn't possibly make any assumptions.
3. It's not known exactly what height ZD576 was flying at when the supposed DME signal was received. Even a 50ft height change could make the difference between receiving and not receiving the DME signal
4. The old TACAN and the current DME are in significantly different locations - the TACAN was 2nm west of where the VOR/DME is now. Again, if anything one would expect that to mean the DME is less receivable from low level off the Mull of Kintyre than the TACAN was, but you just can't make assumptions.
I do think, though, that the Boeing study raises one of the key questions of the ZD576 mystery, and that is, why did they make that heading correction to the right?
and annuvver fing:
We were standing part way up the slope between the lighthouse and the crash site at a point where below us we could see the sea/lighthouse but around us and above there was thick mist. A helicopter came in very close and turned very near us – we could feel it but we could not see it. “They do that all the time” he said; “They turn over that big rock” he said pointing to a prominent feature right on the shoreline.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again everyone.
Just to update yo as to how the meeting went. It was very well attended, with lots of apologies sent as well. The only plus with that is that if everyone who had said they were attending actually had, we wouldn't have all got in the room! About thirty attended, with some 20 being unable to get there.
So, what did we all talk about?
Firstly, a huge thank you and vote of support was made for the Mull of Kintyre Group chair - James Arbuthnot MP. He has worked tirelessly both in and out of the House.
A point was raised regarding the recent unanimous vote by the Church of Scotland General Assembly. You may recall that they were going to write to the MoD to ask that the slur of negligence be removed. Well, in May of next year, the General Assembly will, again, review the Chinook crash issue, and perhaps be a little more vocal with their concerns.
Further action within Parliament was discussed and I have asked for another Early Day Motion (Parliamentary Petition) on the Chinook crash. This will give us the opportunity to write to our MPs and the MoD to again express our concerns over the safety of the verdict. So dust off your keyboards and get the Fax Your MP link ready again.
Why another EDM some of you may ask. Well it's vitally important that our MPs are constantly reminded of this injustice and that they are tasked with doing something about it. Both the MoD and the MPs need to know we are not going to go away. Arkroyal - I recall what happened with your MP last time (still makes me chuckle!). To save you time, I have just checked and to date he has signed 38 EDMs
Very sad to think that next June is the tenth anniversary of the accident, and this injustice has been allowed to go on for so long. Let's see if we can resolve this prior to then.
I'm sorry the campaign has been quiet of late. We haven't, we've just not been quite so loud. Time to make amends!
I will, of course, keep you all updated.
Once more dear friends!!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just to update yo as to how the meeting went. It was very well attended, with lots of apologies sent as well. The only plus with that is that if everyone who had said they were attending actually had, we wouldn't have all got in the room! About thirty attended, with some 20 being unable to get there.
So, what did we all talk about?
Firstly, a huge thank you and vote of support was made for the Mull of Kintyre Group chair - James Arbuthnot MP. He has worked tirelessly both in and out of the House.
A point was raised regarding the recent unanimous vote by the Church of Scotland General Assembly. You may recall that they were going to write to the MoD to ask that the slur of negligence be removed. Well, in May of next year, the General Assembly will, again, review the Chinook crash issue, and perhaps be a little more vocal with their concerns.
Further action within Parliament was discussed and I have asked for another Early Day Motion (Parliamentary Petition) on the Chinook crash. This will give us the opportunity to write to our MPs and the MoD to again express our concerns over the safety of the verdict. So dust off your keyboards and get the Fax Your MP link ready again.
Why another EDM some of you may ask. Well it's vitally important that our MPs are constantly reminded of this injustice and that they are tasked with doing something about it. Both the MoD and the MPs need to know we are not going to go away. Arkroyal - I recall what happened with your MP last time (still makes me chuckle!). To save you time, I have just checked and to date he has signed 38 EDMs
Very sad to think that next June is the tenth anniversary of the accident, and this injustice has been allowed to go on for so long. Let's see if we can resolve this prior to then.
I'm sorry the campaign has been quiet of late. We haven't, we've just not been quite so loud. Time to make amends!
I will, of course, keep you all updated.
Once more dear friends!!
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
Excellent, Brian.
My keyboard as ever ready. Thanks for checking Mr Robathan's EDM activity for me. It will make you chuckle even more to know that he wrote to me again enclosing reams of requests he had received asking him to sign EDMs. 'Have you got nothing better to do than check how many I've signed?' err..... well actually no! When your MP says he 'Almost invariably does not sign EDMs', but is caught out signing others, is he being economical with the truth? He was more thgan a little irritated by your e-mail to him too!
Just moved house, but sadly still within his constituency.
Let's hope we can get Michael Howard on our side. He could land a few blows on Buffhoon for us!
My keyboard as ever ready. Thanks for checking Mr Robathan's EDM activity for me. It will make you chuckle even more to know that he wrote to me again enclosing reams of requests he had received asking him to sign EDMs. 'Have you got nothing better to do than check how many I've signed?' err..... well actually no! When your MP says he 'Almost invariably does not sign EDMs', but is caught out signing others, is he being economical with the truth? He was more thgan a little irritated by your e-mail to him too!
Just moved house, but sadly still within his constituency.
Let's hope we can get Michael Howard on our side. He could land a few blows on Buffhoon for us!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've all pushed on in bad weather and been caught out - fortunately for most an abort and steep climb, plus clean underwear, gets our little pink bodies out of the poo.
At the end of the day, these guys were below SALT, IMC and hit terra firma. Schoolboy error or could they not climb for some reason? Whatever the answer it's been killing us aircrew since some wag decided to try and fly like the birds.
Nobody can dispute that they should not have been in that situation, the question is whether they had a choice? If the answer is that there was no other option then they cannot be found negligent. If they could have done something else then maybe they were? I've seen the SAR helicopter crawl through a Blizzard, landing every 50m or so then clearing ahead the next 50m before moving on. From what I remember, the Chinook hit the slope at a fair rate of knots so the guys were obviously happy with where they were - or can't a helo hover these days?
We all make mistakes, maybe this was one?
At the end of the day, these guys were below SALT, IMC and hit terra firma. Schoolboy error or could they not climb for some reason? Whatever the answer it's been killing us aircrew since some wag decided to try and fly like the birds.
Nobody can dispute that they should not have been in that situation, the question is whether they had a choice? If the answer is that there was no other option then they cannot be found negligent. If they could have done something else then maybe they were? I've seen the SAR helicopter crawl through a Blizzard, landing every 50m or so then clearing ahead the next 50m before moving on. From what I remember, the Chinook hit the slope at a fair rate of knots so the guys were obviously happy with where they were - or can't a helo hover these days?
We all make mistakes, maybe this was one?
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vage Rot.
Welcome to the thread.
As you say, it may well have been an error. It may well have been negligence.
However..... as Chippy said, unless you can say so with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the pilots should be given the benefit of the doubt.
That's the whole point of the campaign.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Welcome to the thread.
As you say, it may well have been an error. It may well have been negligence.
However..... as Chippy said, unless you can say so with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, the pilots should be given the benefit of the doubt.
That's the whole point of the campaign.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
I'm not a helicopter man, fixed wing thru and thru and the Chinook incident is a long time ago now so I may have forgotton some of the bits and pieces but........
Unless an aircraft is on a published approach to an airfield then maps and Nav aids are not to be used for terrain avoidance. That little task is the job of the Mk 1 eyeball or, if your Group Orders permit, your own on board Radar. Indeed ATC will not descend you below sector SALT using their area Radar. JSP318 used to be quite specific! I think the thread of MAC being U/S or intermittent is a Red herring, they probably wouldn't have relied on it anyway unless they were already in the **** and couldn't climb, or land, or hover, or turn around in the hover - get the drift??
BTW, was the ac equipped with the Cossor GPS? if so what software state was it? The older versions vere prone to 'running away' at a vast rate of knots - but even so - not to be used for terrain avoidance!!!
Cheers
VR
I'm not a helicopter man, fixed wing thru and thru and the Chinook incident is a long time ago now so I may have forgotton some of the bits and pieces but........
Unless an aircraft is on a published approach to an airfield then maps and Nav aids are not to be used for terrain avoidance. That little task is the job of the Mk 1 eyeball or, if your Group Orders permit, your own on board Radar. Indeed ATC will not descend you below sector SALT using their area Radar. JSP318 used to be quite specific! I think the thread of MAC being U/S or intermittent is a Red herring, they probably wouldn't have relied on it anyway unless they were already in the **** and couldn't climb, or land, or hover, or turn around in the hover - get the drift??
BTW, was the ac equipped with the Cossor GPS? if so what software state was it? The older versions vere prone to 'running away' at a vast rate of knots - but even so - not to be used for terrain avoidance!!!
Cheers
VR
Just a numbered other
That you are not a helicopter man is obvious from your comments.
If you are interested and have time on your hands, read back over this and the archived thread.
No, they could not climb, as the Mk2 Chinook had an icing clearance (sic) of +4 Degrees C.
Whatever happened, and as Brian points out, even negligence is not ruled out by the campaign, it has to be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever for the slur of Gross Negligence on your colleagues to stand.
With no evidence either way, it is an unsustainable finding.
If you are interested and have time on your hands, read back over this and the archived thread.
No, they could not climb, as the Mk2 Chinook had an icing clearance (sic) of +4 Degrees C.
Whatever happened, and as Brian points out, even negligence is not ruled out by the campaign, it has to be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever for the slur of Gross Negligence on your colleagues to stand.
With no evidence either way, it is an unsustainable finding.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Vage Rot
Please don't come asking about why they didn't carry out an IMC climb into icing conditions or come to the hover whilst allegedly in IMC without first reading up on your subject, we tend to get a bit weary of answering those same questions.
When you've finished this thread, the archived previous one "Chinook - Hit back here", started by John Nichol, has another 66 pages of light reading for you.
Thanks.
Please don't come asking about why they didn't carry out an IMC climb into icing conditions or come to the hover whilst allegedly in IMC without first reading up on your subject, we tend to get a bit weary of answering those same questions.
When you've finished this thread, the archived previous one "Chinook - Hit back here", started by John Nichol, has another 66 pages of light reading for you.
Thanks.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vage Rot,
Yep! Got the drift - had it for ages.
I agree that the Mk1 eyeball comes highly recommended (except if you are a yachtsman using your Mk1 eyeball to see the sun glinting off a low flying Chinook and the coast of the Mull).
Although I respect your point of view, I still don't see how it proves with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what happened in those final moments, let alone who was responsible.
As you say, it was a while ago. Please don't think me rude or patronising if I say that you may like to refresh your memory by visiting the dedicated web site and re-reading the BoI. It may not change your mind - and that's fine, but it may be of use as a reference to support your views.
Chinook Justice
I don't think it was a Cossor GPS (but I'll check). Worth bearing in mind that Jon Tapper was the Flight specialist in electronics and had met with manufacturers to get the best insight possible into the equiment.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Yep! Got the drift - had it for ages.
I agree that the Mk1 eyeball comes highly recommended (except if you are a yachtsman using your Mk1 eyeball to see the sun glinting off a low flying Chinook and the coast of the Mull).
Although I respect your point of view, I still don't see how it proves with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what happened in those final moments, let alone who was responsible.
As you say, it was a while ago. Please don't think me rude or patronising if I say that you may like to refresh your memory by visiting the dedicated web site and re-reading the BoI. It may not change your mind - and that's fine, but it may be of use as a reference to support your views.
Chinook Justice
I don't think it was a Cossor GPS (but I'll check). Worth bearing in mind that Jon Tapper was the Flight specialist in electronics and had met with manufacturers to get the best insight possible into the equiment.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook