Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bertie Thruster makes a very important point – the only account I have of the SAR crew is their description when they were right on the Mull – why they were not asked about the view from out to sea is a puzzle – it should have been the most important starting point for understanding this crash.
I have an account from another helo pilot who was operating on the other side of the peninsula that day but that was in the weather generated by the Mull – he said that even approaching slowly and cautiously it was very hard to judge his closing range with his landing site.
The holidaymakers' video would be very interesting to all.
I have an account from another helo pilot who was operating on the other side of the peninsula that day but that was in the weather generated by the Mull – he said that even approaching slowly and cautiously it was very hard to judge his closing range with his landing site.
The holidaymakers' video would be very interesting to all.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an interesting report from north of the border last night....
BBC iPlayer - Newsnight Scotland: 07/07/2011
NIM/CHK bit starts at about 20:10 mins into programme
BBC iPlayer - Newsnight Scotland: 07/07/2011
NIM/CHK bit starts at about 20:10 mins into programme
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bit of Nimrod/Chinook 'stuff' from the BBC.
BBC News - 'Safety failure link' to Chinook and Nimrod crashes
Personally, I have no time for Jimmy Jones; nevertheless, there it is.
Duncs
BBC News - 'Safety failure link' to Chinook and Nimrod crashes
Personally, I have no time for Jimmy Jones; nevertheless, there it is.
Duncs
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
The Investigating BOI stated quite clearly in their Report that "The forecast weather was suitable for the flight BUT would have required Flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre."
The corollary to that statement would be that the forecast weather would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre. They should, therefore, have been at or above the Safety Altitude of 2400ft as they approached the Mull of Kintyre.
There will doubtless be numerous cries of "That's not the way SH operate" - however this was NOT an SH Task; it was a routine passenger transit flight utilising SH assets. I was once asked to fly top cover (and act as comms relay) to a SAR Helicopter en route to pick up a casualty on a motor cruiser - it did not turn my Andover into an MPA.
The Investigating BOI stated quite clearly in their Report that "The forecast weather was suitable for the flight BUT would have required Flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre."
The corollary to that statement would be that the forecast weather would have precluded flight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre. They should, therefore, have been at or above the Safety Altitude of 2400ft as they approached the Mull of Kintyre.
There will doubtless be numerous cries of "That's not the way SH operate" - however this was NOT an SH Task; it was a routine passenger transit flight utilising SH assets. I was once asked to fly top cover (and act as comms relay) to a SAR Helicopter en route to pick up a casualty on a motor cruiser - it did not turn my Andover into an MPA.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forecast.................Actual..................Forecast...............Actual
For a man with so much supposed flying experience you really do seem to be struggling with some very basic concepts.
According to the BBC about an hour ago in their Forecast it was supposed to have cleared up here in Chippenham but it's Actually clanging it down such that there are puddles on my lawn and the washing is getting another good rinse.
None of this is rocket science Caz, it really isn't.
For a man with so much supposed flying experience you really do seem to be struggling with some very basic concepts.
According to the BBC about an hour ago in their Forecast it was supposed to have cleared up here in Chippenham but it's Actually clanging it down such that there are puddles on my lawn and the washing is getting another good rinse.
None of this is rocket science Caz, it really isn't.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is now a pointless exchange Caz.
Just go back and read what has been covered before.
If the Board believed this flight was impossible to complete, without climb into the icing layer, they would severely criticise the crew for even attempting it.
They didn't. The sortie was possible to complete VFR (at least on forecast), by simply avoiding the Mull and flying around it.
If you have forgotten the difference between Forecast and Actual, do avoid further embarrassement and stop posting on the subject.
Just go back and read what has been covered before.
If the Board believed this flight was impossible to complete, without climb into the icing layer, they would severely criticise the crew for even attempting it.
They didn't. The sortie was possible to complete VFR (at least on forecast), by simply avoiding the Mull and flying around it.
If you have forgotten the difference between Forecast and Actual, do avoid further embarrassement and stop posting on the subject.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing Caz.
If what you say is true, and indeed the flight could not be completed without IFR flight in the VICINITY of the Mull then:
1. The Planning was flawed.
2. The Flight Authorisation was flawed.
3. Therefore the Act of Negligence occurred before departure.
Isn't it strange the Board, Reviewing Officers, and everyone else for that matter, never picked up on this.
If what you say is true, and indeed the flight could not be completed without IFR flight in the VICINITY of the Mull then:
1. The Planning was flawed.
2. The Flight Authorisation was flawed.
3. Therefore the Act of Negligence occurred before departure.
Isn't it strange the Board, Reviewing Officers, and everyone else for that matter, never picked up on this.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight in IFR in an aeroplane who's avionics had 'switch-on' clearance only?
That would have been negligent!
(But we know the crew did not plan this.)
As it was, the HC2 wasn't even cleared to start engines or taxy, let alone fly passengers! It is a great shame the crews weren't told about the true state of affairs, I am sure they would not have got into the cab.
So, Caz, it is not too difficult to see that those who really were negligent were the persons who insisted the ac be used operationally in NI when it was patently immature and not airworthy but kept this from the operators. I would, of course, also include those who signed the official releases to permit this folly, as well as those who, against expert advice, implemented the policies that led to a culture of systemic failure in the Services' airworthiness and safety regime (going back to the mid 1980s).
Therefore, irrespective of what the pilots did that day (yes, they could have porked it - but we will never know and I dont think they did), any fingers should instead be pointed at the foolishness of the star-officer cadre, their lackeys and civil equivalents who displayed such a complete lack of leadership, decision-making & communication as beggars belief.
Furthermore, these particular individuals have shown an equally-complete lack of integrity & remorse by continuing with the charade ever since. They have lost all respect & have sullied the reputation of the Services; I believe they are not fit to wear rank or hold any positions of authority. If they were to honestly assess their actions (or inactions) & pulbically apologise, that would be a start. Sadly, I doubt they will do this, will they?
However, I suspect that Lord Philip has seen through their flimsy facade - and I really do hope that they are not sleeping well at the moment for fear of being publically exposed & ridiculed.
Roll on Lord P!
That would have been negligent!
(But we know the crew did not plan this.)
As it was, the HC2 wasn't even cleared to start engines or taxy, let alone fly passengers! It is a great shame the crews weren't told about the true state of affairs, I am sure they would not have got into the cab.
So, Caz, it is not too difficult to see that those who really were negligent were the persons who insisted the ac be used operationally in NI when it was patently immature and not airworthy but kept this from the operators. I would, of course, also include those who signed the official releases to permit this folly, as well as those who, against expert advice, implemented the policies that led to a culture of systemic failure in the Services' airworthiness and safety regime (going back to the mid 1980s).
Therefore, irrespective of what the pilots did that day (yes, they could have porked it - but we will never know and I dont think they did), any fingers should instead be pointed at the foolishness of the star-officer cadre, their lackeys and civil equivalents who displayed such a complete lack of leadership, decision-making & communication as beggars belief.
Furthermore, these particular individuals have shown an equally-complete lack of integrity & remorse by continuing with the charade ever since. They have lost all respect & have sullied the reputation of the Services; I believe they are not fit to wear rank or hold any positions of authority. If they were to honestly assess their actions (or inactions) & pulbically apologise, that would be a start. Sadly, I doubt they will do this, will they?
However, I suspect that Lord Philip has seen through their flimsy facade - and I really do hope that they are not sleeping well at the moment for fear of being publically exposed & ridiculed.
Roll on Lord P!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I suspect that Lord Philip has seen through their flimsy facade
Not long now.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
If this is true, then thank god for justice at last. I do not say the crew were not to blame, I say that there was not enough evidence to state that they definitely were. I was just about the last person to talk to the crew. For those who have joined the debate over the years, let me remind you that these were real people with real families and were incredibly professional in what they did. They were special forces trained and were Above Average pilots and crewmen. SOMETHING, only god knows what, went disastrously wrong. Only god knows. The doubters may be right, the supporters likewise, but it is ALL PERSONAL OPINION. No-one has won here!! We should never have been in this situation in the first place. A large one will be poured soon......
I really hope that this will finally clear the pilots of the totally unjust 'findings' which Wratten and Day brought.
Next week should reveal all.
But will those 2 ever apologise? And will the really guilty parties ever be brought to justice?
Anyway, let's all hope that justice will finally be served.
Here's what Call-Me-Dave wrote to me exactly 5 years ago tomorrow:
Surely this reinstatement of reputation will not be long in coming now?
Next week should reveal all.
But will those 2 ever apologise? And will the really guilty parties ever be brought to justice?
Anyway, let's all hope that justice will finally be served.
Here's what Call-Me-Dave wrote to me exactly 5 years ago tomorrow:
Dear (BEagle)
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely
David Cameron
Thank you for your further e-mails about the Chinook accident.
You ask whether I would take early action to reinstate the reputations of the pilots if I form the next Government.
As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, I do believe that the reputations of the two pilots deserve to be reinstated, as the Lords Select Committee recommended, and in the absence of any overwhelming argument presented to me as Prime Minister that is what I would do.
Yours sincerely
David Cameron
