Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[Chocks Wahay]

I didn't intend to keep going round this, but as you were referring to my post let's have one more turn round the dance floor ...

and it is not true that no one at High Wycombe agreed.

Well I don't know for certain because I wasn't there, but I have it first-hand from someone who was. I trust the officer in question, so that's good enough for me.

'This problem began much earlier in the RAF' what is that supposed to mean?

The HC2 programme was, by several accounts, a disaster of epic proportions. Aircraft were returned from upgrade with numerous faults which took years to resolve, and the issues were largely swept under the carpet to avoid embarrassment to all concerned. More than that, management decisions to deploy aircraft with the multitude of issues, and to refuse the crew's request to use the Mk1, not to mention sending an aircraft not cleared for icing conditions into a task which would almost inevitably encounter such conditions are at least partially to blame.

The problem began just short of the Mull. It may not be the custom to pin gross negligence without proof absolute, OK, but how else can you explain this accident?

I can't explain the accident, nor can you. Unless you believe that lack of evidence of a fault proves there was no technical fault (and FADEC faults leave no evidence - no black box) here are several credible possibilities, some more likely than others, but that's not enough to prove anything.

The procedure in those conditions would be to slow down, mantain visual referrences and if necessary land on the beach, so why didn't they?

I don't know, and neither do you

All the nonsence about the aircrafts fitness to fly in icing, fadec problems etc etc are red herrings. We haven't, before or after this incident, had Chinooks throwing themselves into rocks

Both us and the Americans had plenty of documented incidents at the time of the CH47D / HC2, some of which included the aircraft throwing itself at the ground (and narrowly missing, thankfully). Sqn Ldr Burke had several experiences at Boscombe which would make your hair curl.

The BoI (and I'm quoting it directly here) says "The Chinook HC2 had experienced a number of unforseen malfunctions, mainly associated with the engine control system, including undemanded engine shutdowns, engine run-up" I'm not sure I'd want to fly myself in an aircraft with that sort of history, far less put 25 VIP's in the thing. Whoever thought that was a good idea deserves a negligence charge himself.

And here I will rest my case, recognising that there will always be people who don't agree.

[Poltergeist]

Courtney, I am sorry but it appears that the mentality of flight safety and investigation is back in the ark! quote 'but how else can you explain this accident?'

so, on the basis of no other evidence you put it entirely down to crew error? do you have any evidence to confirm that? and do not say that it must be because there is no other 'plausible' explanation .

a total cover up of deficiencies in the procurement of a multi million pound aircraft program would be plausible - I have no evidence and am not suggesting it but it is plausible.

Wratten and Day failed to grasp that this was about prevention of further accidents or, maybe they did not maybe there was another political agenda again, plausible. Whatever, to prevent accidents recurring you have to examine evidence and not base findings on 'got nothing else so we will blame this'

[Poltergeist]

Chocks Wahay, an illuminating answer, thank you
P

[Airborne Aircrew]

Courtney:

We haven't, before or after this incident, had Chinooks throwing themselves into rocks and it is very very improbable that this one did,

Oh how quickly you forget:-

13-MAY-1986, ZA715, Flew into rising ground in bad weather, Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 16

David Vincent BROWNING
Wayne John HOPSON
Unidentified Ghurka Soldier

Link

27-FEB-1987, ZA721, Crashed on test flight after servicing due to mechanical failure, Fatalities: 7 / Occupants: 7

Stephen John NEWMAN
Anthony Donald MOFFAT
Andrew John JOHNS
David John CHITTY
Jeremy Charles MARSHALL
Karl Mark MINSHULL
Peter Jason WHITWELL

Link

Many on ZA721 were friends...

[Edit]

Since I can't find the details of the ZA715 crash I'll concede that it may not have "thrown itself into the ground"... The DASH runaway that occurred on ZA721 was most definitely a case of a Chinook "throwing itself into the ground".

Apologies for going off half cocked.

[/Edit]

[courtney]

OK so how many HC2's have we lost? If it wasn't cleared for icing, by no means uncommon in the heli world, then you don't fly into icing, you don't have to. How many fadec run aways have cost us aircraft, have they made the machine un flyable or forced it into a rock? The technical investigation found evidence of controlled flight at impact and no failures. At impact the aircraft was at high speed in fog and flew into a headland, who was in charge of it? Why were they there in those conditions? To suggest that the aircraft was un controllable or had a mind of it's own is rissible. The problem is that reason has gone out of the window, more important it would seem is to run a vendetta against the two AM's and the RAF in general. Excuse the guy's of gross negligence if you wish, but ultimately they were in charge and they flew flat out into a rock.

[idle stop]

This is a good day for Justice.

Our thanks should be to all who have campaigned for a just result, especially Brian and members of the Tapper and Cook families.

Our enduring sympathy must remain with all who have been affected by this tragedy and its lasting consequences.

There are other accidents, and other injustices, but perhaps they deserve their own space.

[dervish]

ZA721, Crashed on test flight after servicing due to mechanical failure

You are too polite. I've read the BoI and AAIB reports and they are clear on root cause. Bloody appalling quality control at suppliers and a reluctance on MoD's part to upset Boeing.

[courtney]

Airborne Aircrew, the two incidents you quote are not relevant, ZA715, flown into high ground in bad weather, this incident was not the aircrafts fault, but visual dis orientation by the crew. ZA 721, mechanical failure, easily established as such, no such evidence on the Mull.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Originally Posted by courtney

Excuse the guy's of gross negligence if you wish, but ultimately they were in charge andit's quite possible that they flew flat out into a rock.

Now if you had written that you would sound rational but to state as factual something for which you have not a shred of proof of makes you sound a bit silly.

[kintyred]

While we'll never know the true cause of the accident, I'm fairly certain that the most likely explanation was a visual illusion. I knew the crew well and none of them could remotely be considered risk takers. We know that they were flying at a few hundred feet across the water before the impact at cruising speed and that their SH and SF training would have made them familiar with flight in bad weather and in the technique of "coasting in" to landfall respectively. The SH mantra on encountering bad weather has long been "go down, slow down, turn round, land on". That they hadn't even begun to do the first of these tells me that they were comfiortable with their in-flight conditions. They could easily and legally have descended long before coasting in but chose not to (or were distracted by a malfunction, if you wish to invoke that possibilty). Having flown the route in similar conditions I can vouch for for the fact that the Mull rises unexpeectedly steeply in front of you as you approach from the south. It was covered in its customary veil of cloud at the time of the accident but its shape was probably clearly visible to the crew, who probably opted to skirt the landmass, knowing that they had to remain VMC to make their destination (having no planned icing option available). Things must have unravelled very quickly in the last few seconds and, whatever the cause of this tragedy I cannot concieve that the crew would have, for one second considered their actions risky, otherwise they would have descended sooner. That they didn't even start slowing down as they appoached the coast indicates to me that they were satisfied with their chosen course of action. Most aviators have experienced disorientation or visual illusions (the sloping lake in the training valley in Snowdonia for all you helicopter crews!). There but for the grace of God.....
Rest in peace dear friends, we who knew you never lost the faith.

[Chocks Wahay]

OK so how many HC2's have we lost?

At least one, which proves nothing - we've lost one Concorde too ......

The technical investigation found evidence of controlled flight at impact

No, it really didn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

and no failures.

Again, no it didn't - it found no evidence of technical failures, which is not the same thing.

If you look at my desk right now you will see no evidence of the biscuit I've just scoffed, but that doesn't mean I didn't scoff it. Although, as there's no evidence maybe I could get away with another one without incurring the death-stare of Mrs Chocks.

[courtney]

I don't think that there is any doubt that the aircraft impacted the Mull at high speed!? Who was in charge?

[Poltergeist]

To suggest that the aircraft was un controllable or had a mind of it's own is rissible.

based on? flight data? there was none! Nobody knows exactly what happened and that is the point. The conclusions had no evidence and nor do yours

The whole point of this was that there was no evidence and therefore you can not

a) have a meaningful conclusion
b) apportion blame anywhere

and flat out into a rock? again, estimation in the absence of hard data

What is it with the blame culture? yes, I admit, I am less than happy with the Am's position. That is based on evidence not personal feeling as I do not know them. I do expect any senior Public servant to be equitable and clearly they were not. You can blame the advice but at the close of play, they take the big salary to take the responsibility. End of

[courtney]

Chocks, the aircraft was rotated rapidly shortly before impact and struck tail first, perhaps the fadec did this as well? Poltergeist, the AM's did take the responsibility, John Day knew what he was talking about, he commanded a SH sqn in NI, I served under him on it, I also instructed both these pilots. I do not wish to blame, but, by the same token I cannot accept this 'they must not be held responsible because it might upset some'. The impact evidence, rotor pitch settings etc, etc, all indicated a high speed controlled impact?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Courtney:

Airborne Aircrew, the two incidents you quote are not relevant, ZA715, flown into high ground in bad weather, was that the aircrafts fault? ZA 721, mechanical failure, easily established as such, no such evidence on the Mull.

I PMed you about my edit to my last post.

I can assure you that ZA721 flew itself into the dirt as the result of a known issue with the DASH. The issue IIRC practically mandated no low level flight, (below 500')... Steve made no "silly" control inputs... Wally made no error hover taxiing... The airframe took a dive...

Just like the DASH, the FADEC had a proven "mind of it's own"... Hardly a good thing for a military aircraft.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Originally Posted by courtney

John Day knew what he was talking about

Might I suggest that based on today's announcement he clearly did NOT know what he was talking about

[Airborne Aircrew]

Courtney:

Why are you arguing?

The simple fact is that an independent inquiry at the highest level has determined that the reversal of the findings of the BOI by Wratton and Day were inappropriate. This after numerous investigations brought more and more issues to light.

The actual cause of the crash is actually irrelevant. The verdict of GN was wrong, period. Justice was done for the aircrew that died that day.

It would be nice to know the actual cause... It will never be known.

[courtney]

Really, and how much experience has the judge of SH Ops? The BOI were only allowed to establish what happened not to establish fault, that was the job of the AM's. But what does this dealing in semantics achieve? We cannot escape the fact that the aircraft was put into a position in space and time that caused it to crash and if it sufferd a mechanical failure then that apparantly didn't prevent the thing being controlled at impact. The odds of a failure that forced flight at high speed into a rock, that happened to be shrouded in fog and which they shouldn't have been near are infinitesimal.

[Poltergeist]

Really, and how much experience has the judge of SH Ops?

you really miss the point don't you?

the judge examined EVIDENCE not supposition

Evidence =

–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

The evidence did not match the conclusion

[air pig]

We now have a session of what ifs starting, is it now time to allow this to, in effect, to be put to bed.

Remeber the crew and passengers, with respect and humility, with the loss of their lives, family and friends who have suffered for the past seventeen years of speculation, inuendo and obfuscation from all sides.

It is now time, IMHO, to thank Brian and all who have fought for justice for Flt Lts Tapper and Cook and now we should move on but be vigilant to ensure this never happens again.

Regards

Air pig