Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter K.
Sabotage has not conclusively been proved or otherwise. However, I am prepared to accept that as a possibility. It would only go to prove that pilot error was not the case.
Judging the distance from the Mull would have been with the Mk 1 eyeball - 3 pairs, actually. Experience born out of years of visual low flying, coupled with an awareness of the size and shape of the Mull, would have allowed the crew to judge fairly accurately the distance involved [something to do with visual spacial perception, or something like that].
Standard Flight Plan. I would suggest that Ft George as a regular venue for this kind of meeting would be unlikely. Rather, in the interests of security, the venue for regular meetings would have been varied to prevent a pattern developing. In any event, the VFR route would have been dictated by the prevailing weather conditions in the Highlands - unlikely that there would have been a 'standard route'.
As with most inertial nav systems, the pilot has the option at any time of selecting the next waypoint early, often in airliners used to cut corners as air traffic allows. Therefore, it is highly likely that seeing a slight deterioration in weather ahead, the flying pilot could have selected the next waypoint after the Mull to cut the corner and avoid the deterioration, at the same time maintaining visual with the coast, albeit slightly further out initially. Having safely turned to parallel the coast, they could then ease in closer. That's certainly what I would have done, as I suspect most of us who fly low level would have done.
Golf stopovers unlikely. More probably carrying their clubs in case they got stuck due weather or unserviceability at Ft George.
Re Boeing reference to TACAN.. This is entirely irrelevant and a grade one red herring. The Mull would have been between the ac and Machrihanish and therefore not locked on either in range or azimuth. It is likely that it was selected as belts and braces for when they were further up the coast and came into line of sight (for possible nav kit update?).
Flight plan would have been straight lines drawn between turning points, along which the ac would have been flown - approximately. The flying would have been done visually, with the TANS steers available instantly should IMC be encountered. The TANS route and data would be used for timing and speed maintenance purposed, not for 'which way to point next'.
The turn at the Mull would certainly have been planned to have been eyeballed, confirmed by the TANS steer, with the option to turn early and switch to the next waypoint as described above.
Only they didn't. Why? You can speculate all you like, but we will never know the answer for sure.
So many different factors could have come into play; the people that post on this forum have never stated categorically that it must have been one or the other.
Just that settling for pilot error is clearly not justified. Ergo, the fight goes on to have the decision reversed. And there are enough of us that are going to be around for a long time striving to do just that.
And a ban on Sqn members attending the memorial service - I am speechless with rage. I am not PC by any stretch of the imagination, but I would ram 'HUMAN RIGHTS' right where it hurts. I would encourage the press to vilify the pratt that made that decision.
Jacko - how about it?
Sabotage has not conclusively been proved or otherwise. However, I am prepared to accept that as a possibility. It would only go to prove that pilot error was not the case.
Judging the distance from the Mull would have been with the Mk 1 eyeball - 3 pairs, actually. Experience born out of years of visual low flying, coupled with an awareness of the size and shape of the Mull, would have allowed the crew to judge fairly accurately the distance involved [something to do with visual spacial perception, or something like that].
Standard Flight Plan. I would suggest that Ft George as a regular venue for this kind of meeting would be unlikely. Rather, in the interests of security, the venue for regular meetings would have been varied to prevent a pattern developing. In any event, the VFR route would have been dictated by the prevailing weather conditions in the Highlands - unlikely that there would have been a 'standard route'.
As with most inertial nav systems, the pilot has the option at any time of selecting the next waypoint early, often in airliners used to cut corners as air traffic allows. Therefore, it is highly likely that seeing a slight deterioration in weather ahead, the flying pilot could have selected the next waypoint after the Mull to cut the corner and avoid the deterioration, at the same time maintaining visual with the coast, albeit slightly further out initially. Having safely turned to parallel the coast, they could then ease in closer. That's certainly what I would have done, as I suspect most of us who fly low level would have done.
Golf stopovers unlikely. More probably carrying their clubs in case they got stuck due weather or unserviceability at Ft George.
Re Boeing reference to TACAN.. This is entirely irrelevant and a grade one red herring. The Mull would have been between the ac and Machrihanish and therefore not locked on either in range or azimuth. It is likely that it was selected as belts and braces for when they were further up the coast and came into line of sight (for possible nav kit update?).
Flight plan would have been straight lines drawn between turning points, along which the ac would have been flown - approximately. The flying would have been done visually, with the TANS steers available instantly should IMC be encountered. The TANS route and data would be used for timing and speed maintenance purposed, not for 'which way to point next'.
The turn at the Mull would certainly have been planned to have been eyeballed, confirmed by the TANS steer, with the option to turn early and switch to the next waypoint as described above.
Only they didn't. Why? You can speculate all you like, but we will never know the answer for sure.
So many different factors could have come into play; the people that post on this forum have never stated categorically that it must have been one or the other.
Just that settling for pilot error is clearly not justified. Ergo, the fight goes on to have the decision reversed. And there are enough of us that are going to be around for a long time striving to do just that.
And a ban on Sqn members attending the memorial service - I am speechless with rage. I am not PC by any stretch of the imagination, but I would ram 'HUMAN RIGHTS' right where it hurts. I would encourage the press to vilify the pratt that made that decision.
Jacko - how about it?
Which faceless $hit in the mad MoD-box dared even to suggest that current sqn personnel should be banned from attending.
I sincerely hope that this is an incorrect report - and that Bliar will be asked to confirm or deny it at next PMQs by the shadow defence secretary.
At least the topic will emerge into the spotlight of publicity, if nothing else.
I sincerely hope that this is an incorrect report - and that Bliar will be asked to confirm or deny it at next PMQs by the shadow defence secretary.
At least the topic will emerge into the spotlight of publicity, if nothing else.
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
Absolutely no intent to spread stupid gossip HPT.
I was just passing on what I was given by one of the fathers. If it is incorrect, I will be first in the queue to make a public apology.
Brian
I was just passing on what I was given by one of the fathers. If it is incorrect, I will be first in the queue to make a public apology.
Brian
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those on 7 Sqn that wish to attend will do so. No one will make them go or will stop them from going.
Whilst this was a tragic event, not too many of the current 7 Sqn crowd knew the guys that died almost 10 years ago. I wonder if anybody here can name all of those that have served and died whilst serving on 7 Sqn between 1914 and 2004 - Will anybody be visiting their graves on the anniversary of their deaths?
Failure to attend a memorial service should not be read into as an indication of a lack of respect. We all grieve in different ways!
HPT
Whilst this was a tragic event, not too many of the current 7 Sqn crowd knew the guys that died almost 10 years ago. I wonder if anybody here can name all of those that have served and died whilst serving on 7 Sqn between 1914 and 2004 - Will anybody be visiting their graves on the anniversary of their deaths?
Failure to attend a memorial service should not be read into as an indication of a lack of respect. We all grieve in different ways!
HPT
Guest
Posts: n/a
HPT,
It is a sad Day in my view when that becomes the case, granted it is an individuals choice to attend any Memorial service.
What happened to Squadron/Regiment histories and the observance of the same.
I do it every month where I am on the Continent, for all three Services and it is done from the heart.
I see where you are coming from in one way, but the newer members of the Squadron should know their Squadron history and then make their choices, to wether they attend or not.
From Waterloo to the present day, it is all the same to my family and and all the others
Lest we Forget
It is a sad Day in my view when that becomes the case, granted it is an individuals choice to attend any Memorial service.
What happened to Squadron/Regiment histories and the observance of the same.
I do it every month where I am on the Continent, for all three Services and it is done from the heart.
I see where you are coming from in one way, but the newer members of the Squadron should know their Squadron history and then make their choices, to wether they attend or not.
From Waterloo to the present day, it is all the same to my family and and all the others
Lest we Forget
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polyglory
To get more than a couple of Sqn members together in one country at the same time is a miracle and then they are on one standby or another. To get them to attend every memorial for all the Sqn blokes that have died over the last 90 years would be an impossibility.
Perhaps when you were serving we had the 'flex' to do these things - we do not today, so please do not blame the Sqn blokes, blame the politicians who have caused to to keep this thread going and that have culled our numbers to the point of breaking strain.
Another of ours passed on today. It would be good to think we could all attend his funeral, but I somehow doubt that will be possible.
HPT
To get more than a couple of Sqn members together in one country at the same time is a miracle and then they are on one standby or another. To get them to attend every memorial for all the Sqn blokes that have died over the last 90 years would be an impossibility.
Perhaps when you were serving we had the 'flex' to do these things - we do not today, so please do not blame the Sqn blokes, blame the politicians who have caused to to keep this thread going and that have culled our numbers to the point of breaking strain.
Another of ours passed on today. It would be good to think we could all attend his funeral, but I somehow doubt that will be possible.
HPT
Guest
Posts: n/a
HPT,
Thank you for explaining the facts of modern service life, they become more difficult every day and I had forgotten that.
It has been a wee while since I left the Service and I thank you for reminding me of the strains of the modern Service and very sorry to hear of your recent Squadron loss.
Lest We Forget
Thank you for explaining the facts of modern service life, they become more difficult every day and I had forgotten that.
It has been a wee while since I left the Service and I thank you for reminding me of the strains of the modern Service and very sorry to hear of your recent Squadron loss.
Lest We Forget
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to Kilo 52:
You wrote
This presupposes that they found themselves IMC at low level whilst having control of the aircraft. It is entirely possible that they had already tried very hard to avoid the aircraft flying them into IMC and were trying very hard to climb away from the granite-stuffed murk when they impacted the ground. The point is, and it's been made lots of times, that we shall never know what happened on that day and it is therefore unsafe in the extreme to arbitrarily decide that the accident was the fault of the pilots. There are several other possible causes and the more I think about them, the less likely it seems that the pilots were to blame. Pilot error is, indeed, a possibility, but is far from being the certainty that was required to find them negligent.
This finding of negligence must be quashed and those of us fighting in places other than this thread will eventually force this to happen.
You wrote
In my own opinion (and one that is emphasised throughout the entire RAF); if you find yourself IMC at low level there is only one option - which is a max rate climb on a safe heading to Safety Altitude. Continuing to fly towards the Mull would not be my idea of "a safe heading"
This finding of negligence must be quashed and those of us fighting in places other than this thread will eventually force this to happen.
Just a numbered other
Thanks, Meadowbank and FJJP
K52, you continue to assert that a climb to SALT was an option. IT WAS NOT.
Without delving into my files (I haven't time just now) I believe that the local SALT was 2800ft and the SALT for the next leg was 5900ft.
By any yardstick available to the crew, they would be working to a max Alt of 2500ft (the 4 Deg C isotherm)
If you are going to defend the finding of Gross Negligence, words like 'likely' have no place in your argument. They either committed gross negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever, or the finding was wrong. SIMPLE
K52, you continue to assert that a climb to SALT was an option. IT WAS NOT.
Without delving into my files (I haven't time just now) I believe that the local SALT was 2800ft and the SALT for the next leg was 5900ft.
By any yardstick available to the crew, they would be working to a max Alt of 2500ft (the 4 Deg C isotherm)
If you are going to defend the finding of Gross Negligence, words like 'likely' have no place in your argument. They either committed gross negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever, or the finding was wrong. SIMPLE
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,
after some frantic researching, it would appear that the initial concerns over the memorial attendance were caused by good old fashioned chinese whispers.
However... the bottom line is that I was wrong. Perhaps I should have done a little more digging than I initially did.
I accept full responsibility for my post and would therefore like to offer full and unreserved apologies to the following:
The Ministry of Defence
7 Squadron - in particular, HPT
Anyone whose blood pressure was raised by reading the post.
Anyone who was offended by the post.
I can assure you all I won't make the same mistake again.
Despite my embarrassment, I offer you my best, as always.
Brian
after some frantic researching, it would appear that the initial concerns over the memorial attendance were caused by good old fashioned chinese whispers.
However... the bottom line is that I was wrong. Perhaps I should have done a little more digging than I initially did.
I accept full responsibility for my post and would therefore like to offer full and unreserved apologies to the following:
The Ministry of Defence
7 Squadron - in particular, HPT
Anyone whose blood pressure was raised by reading the post.
Anyone who was offended by the post.
I can assure you all I won't make the same mistake again.
Despite my embarrassment, I offer you my best, as always.
Brian
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
K52,
You said "How do you justify the assertion that this was a "milk run"? If that was the case then there would have been a standard Flight Plan".
Although some fixed wing squadrons may have used "standard flight plans" As far as I am aware, certainly at that time, this was not generally the case for rotary wing ops as it wasn't / isn't appropriate on this type of flight.
It is misleading to attempt to apply fixed wing thinking to rotary ops.
You said "How do you justify the assertion that this was a "milk run"? If that was the case then there would have been a standard Flight Plan".
Although some fixed wing squadrons may have used "standard flight plans" As far as I am aware, certainly at that time, this was not generally the case for rotary wing ops as it wasn't / isn't appropriate on this type of flight.
It is misleading to attempt to apply fixed wing thinking to rotary ops.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque and K52
Re the “milk run” and “standard flight plan” business. Please let me explain in layman’s terms what I was on about:
You are crossing the sea at low level where it is clear and pleasant towards the Mull;
Your only visual reference ahead is the end of the Mull itself BUT it is so obscured in mist that, at any distance, no useful ground detail is visible;
You want to stick to a popular route for such flights and when you are close enough, you can eyeball the shoreline (which close up is visible because the mist only starts forming as the air rises up the slope);
It is the getting close enough to see the shoreline clearly without creeping cautiously along towards it that is the problem;
With a high speed and weight you need to anticipate the turn somewhat;
Neither the TANS system or the Mk1 eyeball can safely get you close enough to that shoreline for your recognition of small detail that would give you your near field judgment;
Dependence upon the TANS and the Mk1 eyeball would demand prudence and therefore a turn well away from the Mull - spoiling the usual route because of this one aspect or requiring a climb into the world of instrument flying where (being so cloudy) neither the crew nor the passengers would be so comfortable even if this option was possible in the light of the icing limitation;
Given that this was probably a “popular” route and that these conditions would have been a regular occurrence in that area, it had occurred to me that there may have been an established practice to get around that last bit of the approach to the Mull – a bit like knowing the height of lighthouses or similar features can help coastal navigators judge their distance off in the days before radar (ZD576 did not have a radar) or radio/satellite navigation aids – once you are parallel (and close) to the shoreline all is good;
If I had been a thoughtful and responsible planner of operations, I think that I would have suggested something like using the TACAN for that awkward part – perhaps even installing a portable set of DME say at the lighthouse (cheap for the service it would have provided) – for a trial period – even borrow a set from our “friends” – but no! – who would be responsible for its security and monitor its accuracy? – a silly idea – especially as it is so easy to tamper with such ground equipment to give a false reading – it would have been beyond negligent to suggest such a scheme. Anyway, it was just an idea – I wonder what other arrangements could have been made, if any (it could have been left to the pilots all the time)?
I maintain that they demonstrated control at the last moment by starting the evasive manoeuvre which was consistent with either their SEEING how close they were (shoreline passing beneath or mist flitting past windscreen) or when the altitude warning went off suggesting that they were not (successfully) judging their distance off that mist visually; the point at which they had selected their next waypoint, although before the actual waypoint, was already so close in under those conditions that they must have had something else to go on – not the eyeball as explained here.
If not the TACAN then what?
Re the “milk run” and “standard flight plan” business. Please let me explain in layman’s terms what I was on about:
You are crossing the sea at low level where it is clear and pleasant towards the Mull;
Your only visual reference ahead is the end of the Mull itself BUT it is so obscured in mist that, at any distance, no useful ground detail is visible;
You want to stick to a popular route for such flights and when you are close enough, you can eyeball the shoreline (which close up is visible because the mist only starts forming as the air rises up the slope);
It is the getting close enough to see the shoreline clearly without creeping cautiously along towards it that is the problem;
With a high speed and weight you need to anticipate the turn somewhat;
Neither the TANS system or the Mk1 eyeball can safely get you close enough to that shoreline for your recognition of small detail that would give you your near field judgment;
Dependence upon the TANS and the Mk1 eyeball would demand prudence and therefore a turn well away from the Mull - spoiling the usual route because of this one aspect or requiring a climb into the world of instrument flying where (being so cloudy) neither the crew nor the passengers would be so comfortable even if this option was possible in the light of the icing limitation;
Given that this was probably a “popular” route and that these conditions would have been a regular occurrence in that area, it had occurred to me that there may have been an established practice to get around that last bit of the approach to the Mull – a bit like knowing the height of lighthouses or similar features can help coastal navigators judge their distance off in the days before radar (ZD576 did not have a radar) or radio/satellite navigation aids – once you are parallel (and close) to the shoreline all is good;
If I had been a thoughtful and responsible planner of operations, I think that I would have suggested something like using the TACAN for that awkward part – perhaps even installing a portable set of DME say at the lighthouse (cheap for the service it would have provided) – for a trial period – even borrow a set from our “friends” – but no! – who would be responsible for its security and monitor its accuracy? – a silly idea – especially as it is so easy to tamper with such ground equipment to give a false reading – it would have been beyond negligent to suggest such a scheme. Anyway, it was just an idea – I wonder what other arrangements could have been made, if any (it could have been left to the pilots all the time)?
I maintain that they demonstrated control at the last moment by starting the evasive manoeuvre which was consistent with either their SEEING how close they were (shoreline passing beneath or mist flitting past windscreen) or when the altitude warning went off suggesting that they were not (successfully) judging their distance off that mist visually; the point at which they had selected their next waypoint, although before the actual waypoint, was already so close in under those conditions that they must have had something else to go on – not the eyeball as explained here.
If not the TACAN then what?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I see in the Times this morning that John Major has come out in support of the verdict being overturned.
The former Prime Minister calls today for blame to be lifted from the pilots of an RAF Chinook which crashed into the Mull of Kintyre ten years ago while carrying Britain's top counter-Irish-terrorist experts.
The former Prime Minister calls today for blame to be lifted from the pilots of an RAF Chinook which crashed into the Mull of Kintyre ten years ago while carrying Britain's top counter-Irish-terrorist experts.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...108030,00.html
John Major makes a very clear, plodding argument. I fear it may not be read in full by too many as it is a little dry. It remains though a compelling piece of writing.
I tip my hat to the man.
Cheers
WWW
John Major makes a very clear, plodding argument. I fear it may not be read in full by too many as it is a little dry. It remains though a compelling piece of writing.
I tip my hat to the man.
Cheers
WWW
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
Walter,
My apologies for saying this but I'm not sure that your conjecture (or any other, nothing personal) is relevant at this late stage. We can neither prove or disprove conjecture.
Unfortunately, due to my present personal circumstances I do not have time or wish to go into a protracted argument of semantics but I could also think up a number scenarios that would fit the circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree that any number of factors not discovered or even undisclosed might have been very relevant, not that I am saying there was a conspiracy of any sort.
The news about Mr Major is very welcome. How glad I am that our persistence is beginning to make more and more people, now including the Prime Minister of the time, realise that a great injustice has been done and needs correcting.
My apologies for saying this but I'm not sure that your conjecture (or any other, nothing personal) is relevant at this late stage. We can neither prove or disprove conjecture.
Unfortunately, due to my present personal circumstances I do not have time or wish to go into a protracted argument of semantics but I could also think up a number scenarios that would fit the circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree that any number of factors not discovered or even undisclosed might have been very relevant, not that I am saying there was a conspiracy of any sort.
The news about Mr Major is very welcome. How glad I am that our persistence is beginning to make more and more people, now including the Prime Minister of the time, realise that a great injustice has been done and needs correcting.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
It is indeed a solid and thorough piece of work, and has a pretty prominent place opposite the leader page, rather than being tucked away obscurely.
A valuable addition to the groundswell of opinion.
It is indeed a solid and thorough piece of work, and has a pretty prominent place opposite the leader page, rather than being tucked away obscurely.
A valuable addition to the groundswell of opinion.