Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 17th Jul 2011, 16:17
  #8141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 1,339
Indeed, Chugalug2 - that's quite some article!
Sure is, BEagle! Some 'in your face' allegations being made there - I wonder if the CVR tape will actually surface? Certainly, it's existence has been talked about in quiet corners for a long time. For anyone interested, see both of these - they are startling:

Argyll News: Kintyre Chinook crash issue even more serious – Fox to report to Parliament on Philip Report on Wednesday | For Argyll

Argyll News: 1994 Kintyre Chinook crash pilots cleared – now the real gross negligence must be identified | For Argyll


As for Wratten and Day? Having seen both in 'action' during my career, it is my opinion that they were nobs then, and they still are!
MrBernoulli is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 16:55
  #8142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 72
Posts: 370
Do read the second article in Mr B's post by Lynda Hamilton.
When the gutter press finally get distracted from Murdoch, it should lead to some very interesting articles and law suits.
dalek is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 18:14
  #8143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 818
What good would it do anyone to reopen the Tornado case?

The Inquiry decided it was a momentary error of judgement, probably while avoiding a bird strike, that did not amount to negligence and cleared the deceased crew of blame.
The journo doesn't agree with that. She doesn't understand bird strikes.

What does she want? The Inquiry reopened and the pilot blamed?
All journo's care about is a story and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.

The crew are both dead.
Let them RIP.

B.
Bronx is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 19:25
  #8144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
What good would it do anyone to reopen the Tornado case?
You are kidding, right?

Some very serious allegations have been made; these cannot be allowed to remain unresolved.

It's called justice. Perhaps an alien concept to some?
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 19:41
  #8145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 818
No BEagle, I am not kidding. I am expressing my opinion.

Serious allegations made by who?
Some journo.

It's called justice. Perhaps an alien concept to some?
Disagreeing with people without being pompous seems to be an alien concept to you.

B.
Bronx is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 19:45
  #8146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
Wear the cap if you will, but actually I was referring to the less-than-dynamic duo....
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 19:50
  #8147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 818
So you think some journo making allegations is a good enough reason for a review of the Inquiry's decision to exonerate the Tornado crew.

I don't.

B.
Bronx is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 22:19
  #8148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,164
[QUOTE=Agaricus bisporus;6577705.....In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT. [/QUOTE]


And how do you know that it WAS CFIT, no-one else KNOWS, and NO ONE really knows what ACTUALLY happened?
ZH875 is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 22:40
  #8149 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,192
As Bronx says, what good would it do. Both men are dead. Libel that is.

Anyway, matters are getting a trifle heated and there can be no chance that a 'Tornado' thread will emerge. But while it is still important for people to voice their opinions and concerns on the Chinook disaster, that is bound to happen, but it should not make a path for it to go too far. As I said earlier the suggestion that a topic 'with the same name' should be opened to continue the Chinook debate is NOT going to happen.

It is over and it has to end. After receiving many PM's today it is clear that the regulars are very happy with the result and now want the thread to fade away.
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 22:43
  #8150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Various

..congrats to all the campaigners , good outcome.....

..for the sake of completeness there are a couple of observations I would like to put on record before the thread is closed....

...there is an error in the AAIB report on page 33 , para 5.10 , third line ,
"bearing of 012°G(015°M(L)"

should read "bearing of 012°G(21.5°M(L)" or alternatively "bearing of 012°G(016°M(OS)"............as per the definitions on page 31 of the same report .........a bit academic really.......

......as the local magnetic variation at the Mull was found to be 12.5 degrees West , this changes some of the other bearing information
for example the heading of 35 degrees found on the HP console , less 12.5 , gives 22.5 degrees , very close to the true heading flown in the period immediately after waypoint change as indicated by the GPS data....(22.23Deg.T)........
...so the chinook could have left the Irish coast using the 7.5 degree west variation published for the region.........and discovered that
this was no longer accurate as they approached the Mull......this should have directed them further west away from land........but may have formed a distraction for a time and may have prompted them to yaw to port and starboard in order to check heading info.??.....and
to compare and cross check the GM9 info with the TANS heading display....
......as we know they were flying closer to the Mull than planned due to accumulated errors on the waypoint location and GPS signal.....and this possible distraction may have delayed their awareness of their proximity until too late ........
...this compass difference may never have been noticed on a good VFR day , as the navigation is then done mostly visually with little reference to instruments..

...............I had refrained from mentioning this last point before , as it seemed somewhat unlikely.......but should be considered.........in plotting the locations of waypoints A and B , the co-ordinates appear to have been rounded down , which moved both waypoints to the South and East of the probable intended locations , exacerbating the danger of proximity to higher ground ........
.......all crew ( and probably most of their colleagues) it appears had served in other theatres such as Bosnia and the Gulf ................where their location was East of the Greenwich meridian ............in which case any rounding down of a co-ordinate in those theatres would move a location to the South and West of the true location.........
............In operating from NI , a posting significantly West of Greenwich this habit may have been applied automatically
and resulted in the waypoint moving inshore instead of offshore........

.....as suggested by others.........a combination of events which would each be insignificant when considered in isolation , may have added up to cause the accident.......

rgds Robin Clark....
Robin Clark is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 23:07
  #8151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 683
Agaricus, (Fishead...)
If you can tell us, on what basis you feel so confident that CFIT is the only possibe cause we may have some basis for debate.

Otherwise, if you have no wish to debate, your comments are worthless.

yawn!
4468 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 23:16
  #8152 (permalink)  
SKOTAS, LAPIFC
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,022
Sorry it has to end this way folks, but the petty squabbling that is now emerging is degrading the past excellence of this thread and that must stop, so it is now closed.
Wholigan is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2011, 23:27
  #8153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Agaricus bisporus
had the definition been properly worded (ie, beyond reasonable...)
That is the 'properly worded' standard of proof when aircrew are still alive to give their account of what happened and defend themselves.
Aircrew who survive have all the rights and protections associated with a fair trial and also have the right to appeal against an adverse finding.

Aircrew who die have no such rights.
That is why a higher standard of proof is required before condemning aircrew who are dead and can't defend themselves.

bizarrely misworded burden of proof
“Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent” seems very clear to me.
Heliport is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.