Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
I repeat:
1) Please direct us to the source document from where you are able to substantiate your claim that;
"This HC2 was equipped to interrogate the (UHF) portable DME sets"
2) Expand on your implication that the 'transponder' on this aircraft was capable of displaying a range from a ground based transponder.
3) Specifically, which model of airborne transponder allows this, and where was the associated range readout displayed in the cockpit of ZD576?
VERY simple questions.
Please provide the answers.
Thank you.
I repeat:
1) Please direct us to the source document from where you are able to substantiate your claim that;
"This HC2 was equipped to interrogate the (UHF) portable DME sets"
2) Expand on your implication that the 'transponder' on this aircraft was capable of displaying a range from a ground based transponder.
3) Specifically, which model of airborne transponder allows this, and where was the associated range readout displayed in the cockpit of ZD576?
VERY simple questions.
Please provide the answers.
Thank you.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
I think I am correct in saying your first attempt to link IFF/SSR, and the code of 7760, to the interrogation of a ground beacon for the purpose of providing a DME range, was stated in August of this year, on page 77 of this thread.
Presumably having become bored with your preoccupation with tacan frequencies.
Linking IFF/SSR with provision of DME range in ZD576 is utter garbage!
Sorry
PS. I don't need my 'mates' to tell me what towel rails are for.
I think I am correct in saying your first attempt to link IFF/SSR, and the code of 7760, to the interrogation of a ground beacon for the purpose of providing a DME range, was stated in August of this year, on page 77 of this thread.
Presumably having become bored with your preoccupation with tacan frequencies.
Linking IFF/SSR with provision of DME range in ZD576 is utter garbage!
Sorry
PS. I don't need my 'mates' to tell me what towel rails are for.
Just a numbered other
Since DME is UHF, any aerial would handle only very small towels indeed.
THe only 'towel rail' on the Sea King was the ADF aerial!
And twinact, my notes (which are not cross referenced, so it would take an age to delve out the source) say 'NI based'.
THe only 'towel rail' on the Sea King was the ADF aerial!
And twinact, my notes (which are not cross referenced, so it would take an age to delve out the source) say 'NI based'.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
You asked:
"If you know what the "towel rails" are for why not enlighten others on this thread with your understanding?"
My answer:
Because it is utterly irrelevant to this issue, and therefore an unwelcome distraction, and waste of bandwidth!
Now please answer my VERY straightforward questions on your (frankly) bizarre hypothesis, or be categorised in the same way!
Thank you.
You asked:
"If you know what the "towel rails" are for why not enlighten others on this thread with your understanding?"
My answer:
Because it is utterly irrelevant to this issue, and therefore an unwelcome distraction, and waste of bandwidth!
Now please answer my VERY straightforward questions on your (frankly) bizarre hypothesis, or be categorised in the same way!
Thank you.
thoma,
This thread is concerned with the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, and subsequent connected events. You might find it more appropriate to ask your question elsewhere.
regards
T&B
This thread is concerned with the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, and subsequent connected events. You might find it more appropriate to ask your question elsewhere.
regards
T&B
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
What we're saying, weather wise, is an educated best guess, even a probability. No-one can say what the weather looked like from the cockpit.
The weather information currently available comes from a forecast, an aftercast, witnesses on the Mull and a witness looking at the Mull. All differ.
The weather the crew were flying in was [insert your opinion] here.
As the weather conditions are being cited as playing a fundamental role in the crash, I would suggest that you need to have absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to what the conditions were.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The weather information currently available comes from a forecast, an aftercast, witnesses on the Mull and a witness looking at the Mull. All differ.
The weather the crew were flying in was [insert your opinion] here.
As the weather conditions are being cited as playing a fundamental role in the crash, I would suggest that you need to have absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to what the conditions were.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
invertron
NO. No-one is saying that. I am simply providing an answer to the question: What is the minimum weather for VFR flight (with or without pax, it makes no difference). Had they been 'grubbing around' in such weather, it would have been quite legal.
As Brian says, we have no idea what conditions they were actually faced with.
SH flying is quite hairy at times, and the decision to put all those high profile people in one Chinook was not the pilots'.
It was however, in my view, an act of Gross Negligence.
NO. No-one is saying that. I am simply providing an answer to the question: What is the minimum weather for VFR flight (with or without pax, it makes no difference). Had they been 'grubbing around' in such weather, it would have been quite legal.
As Brian says, we have no idea what conditions they were actually faced with.
SH flying is quite hairy at times, and the decision to put all those high profile people in one Chinook was not the pilots'.
It was however, in my view, an act of Gross Negligence.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
invertron
Wherever did you get the idea that:
"the vis was 1000m and the Cb was 100 '...and they were grubbing around !!!!!"
Can't you read?
It has been suggested these were the LIMITS in NI!!!
If you wanted to know, the ONLY evidence regarding the actual weather being experienced by the crew as they approached the Mull, you need only have reviewed the evidence of the yachtsman, Holbrook, mentioned numerous times on this thread!
But perhaps you enjoy the 'bluster' of factual ignorance.
Very many HIGHLY experienced operators (some on this thread) have reviewed the 'evidence' regarding weather, and have found it to be inconclusive!
Would you care to appraise yourself of a little more of the FACTS before returning? Perhaps then you could ask more sensible questions, and we could ALL move on.
WTF!!!
"with a shed load of passengers in the back...!!!! WTF over....?"
Call me old fashioned, but I don't vary my safety standards or weather limits dependent upon the POB!
Maybe you are suggesting such a situation would have been more understandable if the aircraft was empty?
Wherever did you get the idea that:
"the vis was 1000m and the Cb was 100 '...and they were grubbing around !!!!!"
Can't you read?
It has been suggested these were the LIMITS in NI!!!
If you wanted to know, the ONLY evidence regarding the actual weather being experienced by the crew as they approached the Mull, you need only have reviewed the evidence of the yachtsman, Holbrook, mentioned numerous times on this thread!
But perhaps you enjoy the 'bluster' of factual ignorance.
Very many HIGHLY experienced operators (some on this thread) have reviewed the 'evidence' regarding weather, and have found it to be inconclusive!
Would you care to appraise yourself of a little more of the FACTS before returning? Perhaps then you could ask more sensible questions, and we could ALL move on.
WTF!!!
"with a shed load of passengers in the back...!!!! WTF over....?"
Call me old fashioned, but I don't vary my safety standards or weather limits dependent upon the POB!
Maybe you are suggesting such a situation would have been more understandable if the aircraft was empty?
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 Mr Purdey,
The lighthouse keepr and all the other witnesses on the Mull were in the cloud. How could they estimate how far out it extended? Recall a time when you were in fog/cloud. Could you estimate how far it extended? I respectfully doubt it.
What about the evidence of the yachtsman, Mr Holbrook, who was looking at the Mull from the same direction as the Chinook's approach. He says he could see the coast of the Mull. As an experienced yachstman, doesn't his evidence deserve equal weight?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The lighthouse keepr and all the other witnesses on the Mull were in the cloud. How could they estimate how far out it extended? Recall a time when you were in fog/cloud. Could you estimate how far it extended? I respectfully doubt it.
What about the evidence of the yachtsman, Mr Holbrook, who was looking at the Mull from the same direction as the Chinook's approach. He says he could see the coast of the Mull. As an experienced yachstman, doesn't his evidence deserve equal weight?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
JP,
You miss the point.
I agree that the weather at the crash site was in cloud.
Why the aircraft arrived at that point can't be determined with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
The aircraft was seen by Mr Holbrook, below that cloud. He could also see the lighthouse.
Tandem makes an interesting point. The flight rules were exactly the same, whether the aircraft carried just its crew, or 20+ of the most important people in the province.
Any guess how much attention this accident would have generated in the former case?
Reason? I reckon Wratten and Day felt exposed to criticism as so many VIPs had perished, hence the draconian measures to shift the blame down the food chain. Despicable
You miss the point.
I agree that the weather at the crash site was in cloud.
Why the aircraft arrived at that point can't be determined with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
The aircraft was seen by Mr Holbrook, below that cloud. He could also see the lighthouse.
Tandem makes an interesting point. The flight rules were exactly the same, whether the aircraft carried just its crew, or 20+ of the most important people in the province.
Any guess how much attention this accident would have generated in the former case?
Reason? I reckon Wratten and Day felt exposed to criticism as so many VIPs had perished, hence the draconian measures to shift the blame down the food chain. Despicable
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Let me suggest to you that the general BROKEN cloudbase in the IMMEDIATE vicinity of the high ground of the Mull was approximately 300' ASL, and the visibility below this level was of the order of 5km.
Let me suggest to you that witnesses on that high ground reported they were IN cloud
Let me suggest to you that a yachtsman approximately 2 miles from the accident site was in bright sunshine, and he "SAW" this Chinook flying in those SAME bright conditions.
Finally let me suggest that, in the very final stages of their approach to the Mull, at 200-400' ASL, Flt Lts Tapper and Cook, were operating ZD576 in VMC, and in strict accordance with the rules for VFR.
And further, that they should have been perfectly able to continue in that manner.
What have I suggested that is INCOMPATIBLE with the FACTUAL evidence?
"Er, well, yes"
I know you don't like it, just show me the EVIDENCE (not opinions!) to refute my suggestions!
If only they'd had an FDR, or CVR - But they didn't, did they!
Let me suggest to you that the general BROKEN cloudbase in the IMMEDIATE vicinity of the high ground of the Mull was approximately 300' ASL, and the visibility below this level was of the order of 5km.
Let me suggest to you that witnesses on that high ground reported they were IN cloud
Let me suggest to you that a yachtsman approximately 2 miles from the accident site was in bright sunshine, and he "SAW" this Chinook flying in those SAME bright conditions.
Finally let me suggest that, in the very final stages of their approach to the Mull, at 200-400' ASL, Flt Lts Tapper and Cook, were operating ZD576 in VMC, and in strict accordance with the rules for VFR.
And further, that they should have been perfectly able to continue in that manner.
What have I suggested that is INCOMPATIBLE with the FACTUAL evidence?
"Er, well, yes"
I know you don't like it, just show me the EVIDENCE (not opinions!) to refute my suggestions!
If only they'd had an FDR, or CVR - But they didn't, did they!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this post for years and have a lot of admiration for the avid supporters of John and Richard. It never ceases to amaze me how many opinionated folk state their opinions as fact. The simple matter is there are no facts. I grovel around in VFR and special VFR below 200 feet a lot of my time and for those readers who don't know, VFR in helicopters is effectively "clear of cloud and in sight of the surface". The same rules apply in civvy street and it makes sod all difference if you have no passengers or are full of em. This visibility is that which is observed from the cockpit, not some yacht or lighthouse. John and Richard were both good pilots and were not likely to have made suicidal type decisions. Therefore, either they made a mistake or something happened. I fly an aircaraft with an OK icing clearance and if I were put in their situation flying an aircraft which was effectively a VFR machine on that day I would have been most unhappy. I gather that their duty day had already been a long one and that John was most unhappy about flying this particualr aircaraft. It is many years since I was in her majesty's employ but it still grieves me when I see an organisation which I was proud to be a part of make scape goats out of two fine men. Wratten and Day made a political decision when they changed the findings of the BoI. It is high time Mr Hoon and his cronies in government reversed this unfair judgement and put the matter to bed.
Can we save space on this valuable thread by ignoring the IFF/DME sidetrack?
(My logbook shows 8.05 hrs flown on 2 June '94, carrying 132 pax and lifting 62,000 kgs of freight, in ZA 710 (HC2 sistership to ZD 576)
With hindsight I wish I'd kept a diary of those months, listing the many faults we had to contend with, the shortage of spares and the non- existant engineering documentation. We fixed FADEC faults by swapping the units over, as we had no spare ones! (I wonder where those F700's went?!)
Some months earlier, when I was being briefed on the state of the aircraft I was to be responsible for, the hair had risen up on the back of my neck, a very odd sensation, and one I have never experienced either before or subsequently.
(My logbook shows 8.05 hrs flown on 2 June '94, carrying 132 pax and lifting 62,000 kgs of freight, in ZA 710 (HC2 sistership to ZD 576)
With hindsight I wish I'd kept a diary of those months, listing the many faults we had to contend with, the shortage of spares and the non- existant engineering documentation. We fixed FADEC faults by swapping the units over, as we had no spare ones! (I wonder where those F700's went?!)
Some months earlier, when I was being briefed on the state of the aircraft I was to be responsible for, the hair had risen up on the back of my neck, a very odd sensation, and one I have never experienced either before or subsequently.
Bertie Thruster said:
With hindsight I wish I'd kept a diary of those months, listing the many faults we had to contend with, the shortage of spares and the non-existant engineering documentation. We fixed FADEC faults by swapping the units over, as we had no spare ones! (I wonder where those F700's went?!)
First – I’m not a Chinook person, and having seen the God-awful state of the only one I’ve been in (a new Mk2, but post-1994), I’d never fly in one. Ever. However, I do know that while we have many different aircraft, their safety is governed by the same rules within the MoD. Bertie raises key issues pertaining to known facts about the aircraft fleet in general. He mentions faults, spares shortage and lack of engineering documentation. Three related issues there, as precisely the same process (PDS) governs maintaining safety, configuration control, managing systems integration, resolving obsolescence, maintaining drawings, maintaining engineering documentation, investigating faults, ensuring SNAEC 118s (aircraft) and ESPANS (avionics) for spares are issued (which dictate what spares are bought),etc etc. And the guy who manages PDS is the only named individual in any MoD contract, as he has delegated airworthiness / type approval authority. Some of it mundane, but collectively very important.
Looking back to 1994, the MoD in general, and the RN in particular, had endured 3 consecutive swingeing (25%+) cuts in this area, which may explain lack of support to you Bertie. Jump forward, nothing has changed, and the process is widely ignored.
Clearly there is a certain weight of factual evidence in this area. If you lacked up to date engineering documentation, then by definition the aircraft safety case was not current, as the audit trail would be incomplete. It follows it should not have CA Release at the build standard in question. (Did it have a Whole Aircraft safety case or, for example, was it deemed safe at a certain, perhaps older, build standard, and subsequent mods simply deemed safe in themselves? There is an enormous difference. And that’s not even mentioning SEMs). The process is clear. No engineering documentation > no trials > no CA Release/MAR. Having said this, I wish I’d a fiver for every time DEC or C2 has directed that pubs and spares be ditched first, to save money. In that case, the PM must examine his conscience and decide whether to risk disciplinary action by declaring planning blight (as safety, sustainability and viability is compromised). Few do.
With hindsight I wish I'd kept a diary of those months, listing the many faults we had to contend with, the shortage of spares and the non-existant engineering documentation. We fixed FADEC faults by swapping the units over, as we had no spare ones! (I wonder where those F700's went?!)
First – I’m not a Chinook person, and having seen the God-awful state of the only one I’ve been in (a new Mk2, but post-1994), I’d never fly in one. Ever. However, I do know that while we have many different aircraft, their safety is governed by the same rules within the MoD. Bertie raises key issues pertaining to known facts about the aircraft fleet in general. He mentions faults, spares shortage and lack of engineering documentation. Three related issues there, as precisely the same process (PDS) governs maintaining safety, configuration control, managing systems integration, resolving obsolescence, maintaining drawings, maintaining engineering documentation, investigating faults, ensuring SNAEC 118s (aircraft) and ESPANS (avionics) for spares are issued (which dictate what spares are bought),etc etc. And the guy who manages PDS is the only named individual in any MoD contract, as he has delegated airworthiness / type approval authority. Some of it mundane, but collectively very important.
Looking back to 1994, the MoD in general, and the RN in particular, had endured 3 consecutive swingeing (25%+) cuts in this area, which may explain lack of support to you Bertie. Jump forward, nothing has changed, and the process is widely ignored.
Clearly there is a certain weight of factual evidence in this area. If you lacked up to date engineering documentation, then by definition the aircraft safety case was not current, as the audit trail would be incomplete. It follows it should not have CA Release at the build standard in question. (Did it have a Whole Aircraft safety case or, for example, was it deemed safe at a certain, perhaps older, build standard, and subsequent mods simply deemed safe in themselves? There is an enormous difference. And that’s not even mentioning SEMs). The process is clear. No engineering documentation > no trials > no CA Release/MAR. Having said this, I wish I’d a fiver for every time DEC or C2 has directed that pubs and spares be ditched first, to save money. In that case, the PM must examine his conscience and decide whether to risk disciplinary action by declaring planning blight (as safety, sustainability and viability is compromised). Few do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
We have all been here before, but Tuckunder tells us that 'there are no facts' in this tragedy (none at all?). Does he accept as fact that the aircraft was about 500 yds to the right of the intended track towards the lighthouse waypoint? Regards JP