Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
JP,
While you're at it, you might like to answer a question you failed to answer several weeks ago - how do you KNOW what the crew could or could not see at way point change that makes you so certain that they were being negligent AT THAT POINT?
While you're at it, you might like to answer a question you failed to answer several weeks ago - how do you KNOW what the crew could or could not see at way point change that makes you so certain that they were being negligent AT THAT POINT?
Just a numbered other
JP
I certainly don't.
We have no way of knowing what the intended track was, or if or why they weren't on it.
You should, perhaps brush up on the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Now, some answers, perhaps?
Does he accept as fact that the aircraft was about 500 yds to the right of the intended track towards the lighthouse waypoint?
We have no way of knowing what the intended track was, or if or why they weren't on it.
You should, perhaps brush up on the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Now, some answers, perhaps?
Last edited by Arkroyal; 28th Nov 2004 at 20:09.
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 Bertie Thruster & Tucumseh,
Please have a look at the post I made on page 83. It was a response to Steuart Campbell's book, written by Air Commodore John Blakeley.
The Blakeley Report (as it in known) covers quite comprehensively the engineering points you raise and, I hope, answers any questions you may have.
If not, please come back to me.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Please have a look at the post I made on page 83. It was a response to Steuart Campbell's book, written by Air Commodore John Blakeley.
The Blakeley Report (as it in known) covers quite comprehensively the engineering points you raise and, I hope, answers any questions you may have.
If not, please come back to me.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
rubbish
So now you are saying the CB was 300' and the vis was 5k... So they would have seent he hill from 5 k away then...? The weather has a lot to do with it - Obviously... and whilst Im at it...
"Call me old fashioned, but I don't vary my safety standards or weather limits dependent upon the POB"
Right !!!!!!
Thank you to purdey , at last a sensible reply.
Brian Dixon wrote - "The lighthouse keeper 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." Doers it matter.... ? Where was the Lighthouse keeper? In cloud....so therefore the weather was poor... and they were flying around in poor weather with passengers in the back (although duty of care to the passengers (apparently)doesnt matter ).
"Call me old fashioned, but I don't vary my safety standards or weather limits dependent upon the POB"
Right !!!!!!
Thank you to purdey , at last a sensible reply.
Brian Dixon wrote - "The lighthouse keeper 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." Doers it matter.... ? Where was the Lighthouse keeper? In cloud....so therefore the weather was poor... and they were flying around in poor weather with passengers in the back (although duty of care to the passengers (apparently)doesnt matter ).
Just a numbered other
invertron
It'd be helpful if you gave your posts a little thought before hitting the keys, and a re read to see if they make sense before sending.
Do I understand you, that you disagree with Brian's assertion that if you are in fog, then the weather more than a few yards away from you is unknown to you? He is obviously correct.
The chinook was flying in clear air, visible to the Yachtsman, Mr Holbrook; who could also see the lighthouse. It would seem that the orographic cloud was just a little higher on the land mass of the mull.
The pilots have done nothing wrong either legally, or in terms of duty of care up until now.
For some reason, the aircraft entered the cloud and hit the mull.
In order to find them guilty of gross negligence, you need to find out exactly why that occurred, to a standard of proof of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. The whole thrust of this campaign is that that proof does not exist.
It's no good saying you think they did this, or did that. PROOF is required.
As Tandem says:
If only they'd had an FDR, or CVR - But they didn't, did they!
It'd be helpful if you gave your posts a little thought before hitting the keys, and a re read to see if they make sense before sending.
Do I understand you, that you disagree with Brian's assertion that if you are in fog, then the weather more than a few yards away from you is unknown to you? He is obviously correct.
The chinook was flying in clear air, visible to the Yachtsman, Mr Holbrook; who could also see the lighthouse. It would seem that the orographic cloud was just a little higher on the land mass of the mull.
The pilots have done nothing wrong either legally, or in terms of duty of care up until now.
For some reason, the aircraft entered the cloud and hit the mull.
In order to find them guilty of gross negligence, you need to find out exactly why that occurred, to a standard of proof of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. The whole thrust of this campaign is that that proof does not exist.
It's no good saying you think they did this, or did that. PROOF is required.
As Tandem says:
If only they'd had an FDR, or CVR - But they didn't, did they!
Guest
Posts: n/a
rubbish
The chinook was flying in clear air, visible to the Yachtsman, Mr Holbrook; who could also see the lighthouse. It would seem that the orographic cloud was just a little higher on the land mass of the mull
So they cleary saw the hill did they...? so why did they fly into it then?
Dont get me wrong I'm playing the devils advocate here and feel very strongly that the charge of negligence should be removed straight away. They did not display any negligence. They displayed poor airmanship and poor captaincy BUT they did not warrant any form of negligence.
BUFFOON - SORT THIS OUT
So they cleary saw the hill did they...? so why did they fly into it then?
Dont get me wrong I'm playing the devils advocate here and feel very strongly that the charge of negligence should be removed straight away. They did not display any negligence. They displayed poor airmanship and poor captaincy BUT they did not warrant any form of negligence.
BUFFOON - SORT THIS OUT
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
TandemRotor,
Well, for a start, the Yachtsman did not seem to be a very reliable witness. I recall that he changed his story a couple of times, and it turned out that he had never seen a Chinook before. He thus thought that it was a small helo travelling so slowly that he interpreted it as being on a SAR mission. We do not know what the weather was like at sea level, but we do know that the aircraft was heading for cloud-covered high ground.
Another question for you: if the Chinook had been on track for the lighthouse waypoint, do you agree that its cruise climb would have enabled it to clear the high ground at the lighthouse?
Just thought I would ask. Meanwhile, would you care to answer my earlier question? Regards JP
Invertron,
Interesting, your comment on poor airmanship. Which element of the flight in particular? JP
Well, for a start, the Yachtsman did not seem to be a very reliable witness. I recall that he changed his story a couple of times, and it turned out that he had never seen a Chinook before. He thus thought that it was a small helo travelling so slowly that he interpreted it as being on a SAR mission. We do not know what the weather was like at sea level, but we do know that the aircraft was heading for cloud-covered high ground.
Another question for you: if the Chinook had been on track for the lighthouse waypoint, do you agree that its cruise climb would have enabled it to clear the high ground at the lighthouse?
Just thought I would ask. Meanwhile, would you care to answer my earlier question? Regards JP
Invertron,
Interesting, your comment on poor airmanship. Which element of the flight in particular? JP
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP: It is not my intent to be a regular contributor to this post, there are far better informed contributors than me. This is what I meant when I said there are no facts. The pertinent facts are what could be seen from the cockpit, what happened in the cockpit and what was said in the cockpit. No-one will ever know this and it is pointless hypothesising over it. I think the quality of the 2 pilots is particularly relevent; they were not the type of crew to display gross negligence. What grieves me is that Wratten and Day have made a finding that is not based on fact either, no doubt because they were tasked by their masters to find a cause and someone to blame. If the house of Lords finds in favour of the pilots then that is good enough for me. Hoon and Cronies should reverse this dispicable finding.
Brian Dixon
Many thanks. I had read your previous posting and was rendered speechless, but have now found my tongue. I’m not a pilot so cannot, and never have, commented on aircrew issues, nor do I wish to speculate. With respect to your posting;
Introduction
….. I am looking very much at the engineering area
….. failed to analyse all potentially relevant causes of the accident, including such basics as the airworthiness of the Chinook fleet at the time.
>>>>>I agree these are areas where factual information exists, as opposed to innuendo and fanciful notions. The point I try to make is that CA Release / MAR is granted for a mark of aircraft; but based on the evaluation, usually by Boscombe Down, of one tail number which has been meticulously prepared and presented in the best possible condition. The MAR relates to a very specific build standard, which may read something like “Y List plus mods x, y, z”, and the aircraft is deemed safe at that build standard. More often than not, this immediately follows Contractor trials, Service trials, or Joint / Contractor trials which may have assessed a different build standard; the difference often being Service Engineered Mods, as the default position of the Aircraft DA is that he is permitted to ignore / remove / gag and bag SEMs for trials purposes, especially when he has not been tasked to appraise them and incorporate a superseding mod.
Another issue here is that during contractor trials the design is Under Contractor Control, whereas during MAR trails it is often Under Ministry Control. The transfer of control is a formal process, demanding positive answers to a rigorous checklist before completion. This is the point at which red flags appear if, for example, engineering documentation is incomplete (see Bertie’s comments). Liability is therefore quite clear, with a named individual wholly responsible.
Underpinning both set of trials is a safety case prepared by the Aircraft DA. It can be seen that the safety case prepared for Contractor trials is not necessarily valid for the MAR assessment. The signatory of the MAR therefore relies on a raft of Service and Civilian staff using complementary processes to ensure that, as far as possible, the build standard is maintained across the fleet; a reliance which immediately muddies the notion of accountability. The process by which this is controlled is Post Design Services. PDS costs the same whether you have 1 aircraft or 100. It is not volume related. But, it suffers the same, and often more, cuts every time there is a fleet reduction or savings measure. The upshot, and I generalise here but speak from long experience, is that configuration control suffers and is lost through the MoD taking the risk not to fully assess SEMs. And, it is not unusual to have literally hundreds of updates/changes/mods missing entirely from documentation for one black box system, never mind a whole aircraft (the thrust of Bertie’s comment). I believe this places in question the safety of the aircraft. Nor can they afford to update the whole aircraft safety case as often as they would like, so a SC may actually be years old, supplemented by lots of annotations for each subsequent mod, but often omitting SEMs. I’m sure we all know of examples whereby an SEM is deemed serviceable, but is unsafe or has an adverse effect on other systems; and vice versa. (I’ve always thought this a contradiction – if it’s unsafe it must be U/S, but was corrected when I saw two Westland SEM appraisals which said (1) It works, but it’s unsafe, and (2) It’s safe but it doesn’t work – and approval to fit and fly both was granted. I was given a career brief on my brief career for challenging the decisions, but later made it my business to replace both designs when I assumed responsibility for their safety). This is largely as a result of gradual creep in the scope of SEMs. Nowadays, whole systems are embodied without consulting the DAs. Quite simply, this happens (a) because PDS funding is negligible, and (b) with the passage of time since it was properly funded, you can count on one hand those in the MoD who know how to do it properly. This is all factual, and the thrust of numerous inquisitions by Defence Committees and Auditors over the years. In particular, the NAOs “Modifying Defence Equipment”. In reply to it, CDP reassured the Defence Select Committee that configuration control would be regained on a particular aircraft type, only for the hard earned funds to be spent on something else. I doubt if he went back to admit he had (inadvertently) misled Parliament and the Committees don’t bother with follow-ups.
4. Reporting of Defects
Campbell rightly picks up the problem of Tapper's failure to raise a defect report….
....As anyone who has been on an operational detachment or even a major training exercise knows this approach to the reporting of what are perceived as minor or nuisance defects is often taken, particularly when there is a shortage of aircraft. It is not correct, but it is a fact of life that it happens.
>>>> I’ve posted before on the (legal) difference between Defect and Fault. I know what people mean when the wrong word is used so sorry if I sound pedantic but if you ask the MoD “How many defects does System X have?” they will invariably answer, truthfully, “None” (or very few). But if you use “Faults” the answer will (should) be “Many, but we can’t be sure as the investigative and recording systems have largely fallen into disuse through lack of funds”. They will answer the exam question, so accuracy is important.
I’m not too familiar with RAF procedures at Squadron level, but I’m not sure Flt Lt Tapper would have routinely sat down and filled in a MF760. Would that not be his JENGO? Either way, to criticise is disingenuous or unfair as anyone can raise a MF760. Contractors are specifically, and uniquely, delegated financial authority by the MoD to initiate investigations without MoD approval. The ONLY time a contractor can commit MoD monies without approval. There is a limit to each investigation in terms of cost, but not to the number that can be initiated. In practice, and I’ve seen it done many times (Nimrod guys are particularly adept), a JENGO or whoever’s in charge of a workshop shift at the time, can phone the contractor, have a bloody moan (sorry, politely report a fault), and the Contractor will initiate an investigation in the certain knowledge he will be paid. The Def Stan is very specific (for example, 05-125/2 for all air/ground/sea electronics). If it’s not called up in the contract (which exists for your benefit, to maintain the build standard and safety of your aircraft and equipment), ask why not.
My unique view of the world which I hope complements the fine work and offerings of far more experienced people.
Many thanks. I had read your previous posting and was rendered speechless, but have now found my tongue. I’m not a pilot so cannot, and never have, commented on aircrew issues, nor do I wish to speculate. With respect to your posting;
Introduction
….. I am looking very much at the engineering area
….. failed to analyse all potentially relevant causes of the accident, including such basics as the airworthiness of the Chinook fleet at the time.
>>>>>I agree these are areas where factual information exists, as opposed to innuendo and fanciful notions. The point I try to make is that CA Release / MAR is granted for a mark of aircraft; but based on the evaluation, usually by Boscombe Down, of one tail number which has been meticulously prepared and presented in the best possible condition. The MAR relates to a very specific build standard, which may read something like “Y List plus mods x, y, z”, and the aircraft is deemed safe at that build standard. More often than not, this immediately follows Contractor trials, Service trials, or Joint / Contractor trials which may have assessed a different build standard; the difference often being Service Engineered Mods, as the default position of the Aircraft DA is that he is permitted to ignore / remove / gag and bag SEMs for trials purposes, especially when he has not been tasked to appraise them and incorporate a superseding mod.
Another issue here is that during contractor trials the design is Under Contractor Control, whereas during MAR trails it is often Under Ministry Control. The transfer of control is a formal process, demanding positive answers to a rigorous checklist before completion. This is the point at which red flags appear if, for example, engineering documentation is incomplete (see Bertie’s comments). Liability is therefore quite clear, with a named individual wholly responsible.
Underpinning both set of trials is a safety case prepared by the Aircraft DA. It can be seen that the safety case prepared for Contractor trials is not necessarily valid for the MAR assessment. The signatory of the MAR therefore relies on a raft of Service and Civilian staff using complementary processes to ensure that, as far as possible, the build standard is maintained across the fleet; a reliance which immediately muddies the notion of accountability. The process by which this is controlled is Post Design Services. PDS costs the same whether you have 1 aircraft or 100. It is not volume related. But, it suffers the same, and often more, cuts every time there is a fleet reduction or savings measure. The upshot, and I generalise here but speak from long experience, is that configuration control suffers and is lost through the MoD taking the risk not to fully assess SEMs. And, it is not unusual to have literally hundreds of updates/changes/mods missing entirely from documentation for one black box system, never mind a whole aircraft (the thrust of Bertie’s comment). I believe this places in question the safety of the aircraft. Nor can they afford to update the whole aircraft safety case as often as they would like, so a SC may actually be years old, supplemented by lots of annotations for each subsequent mod, but often omitting SEMs. I’m sure we all know of examples whereby an SEM is deemed serviceable, but is unsafe or has an adverse effect on other systems; and vice versa. (I’ve always thought this a contradiction – if it’s unsafe it must be U/S, but was corrected when I saw two Westland SEM appraisals which said (1) It works, but it’s unsafe, and (2) It’s safe but it doesn’t work – and approval to fit and fly both was granted. I was given a career brief on my brief career for challenging the decisions, but later made it my business to replace both designs when I assumed responsibility for their safety). This is largely as a result of gradual creep in the scope of SEMs. Nowadays, whole systems are embodied without consulting the DAs. Quite simply, this happens (a) because PDS funding is negligible, and (b) with the passage of time since it was properly funded, you can count on one hand those in the MoD who know how to do it properly. This is all factual, and the thrust of numerous inquisitions by Defence Committees and Auditors over the years. In particular, the NAOs “Modifying Defence Equipment”. In reply to it, CDP reassured the Defence Select Committee that configuration control would be regained on a particular aircraft type, only for the hard earned funds to be spent on something else. I doubt if he went back to admit he had (inadvertently) misled Parliament and the Committees don’t bother with follow-ups.
4. Reporting of Defects
Campbell rightly picks up the problem of Tapper's failure to raise a defect report….
....As anyone who has been on an operational detachment or even a major training exercise knows this approach to the reporting of what are perceived as minor or nuisance defects is often taken, particularly when there is a shortage of aircraft. It is not correct, but it is a fact of life that it happens.
>>>> I’ve posted before on the (legal) difference between Defect and Fault. I know what people mean when the wrong word is used so sorry if I sound pedantic but if you ask the MoD “How many defects does System X have?” they will invariably answer, truthfully, “None” (or very few). But if you use “Faults” the answer will (should) be “Many, but we can’t be sure as the investigative and recording systems have largely fallen into disuse through lack of funds”. They will answer the exam question, so accuracy is important.
I’m not too familiar with RAF procedures at Squadron level, but I’m not sure Flt Lt Tapper would have routinely sat down and filled in a MF760. Would that not be his JENGO? Either way, to criticise is disingenuous or unfair as anyone can raise a MF760. Contractors are specifically, and uniquely, delegated financial authority by the MoD to initiate investigations without MoD approval. The ONLY time a contractor can commit MoD monies without approval. There is a limit to each investigation in terms of cost, but not to the number that can be initiated. In practice, and I’ve seen it done many times (Nimrod guys are particularly adept), a JENGO or whoever’s in charge of a workshop shift at the time, can phone the contractor, have a bloody moan (sorry, politely report a fault), and the Contractor will initiate an investigation in the certain knowledge he will be paid. The Def Stan is very specific (for example, 05-125/2 for all air/ground/sea electronics). If it’s not called up in the contract (which exists for your benefit, to maintain the build standard and safety of your aircraft and equipment), ask why not.
My unique view of the world which I hope complements the fine work and offerings of far more experienced people.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
ArkRoyal.
In yours of 28th, you tell us that we do not know what the intended track was. Then what about the flight plan lodged with sqn ops showing the waypoint at (or as it happened, because of inaccurate plotting, near) the lighthouse? There are some missing facts in this sorry tale, but the intended track is not one of them. Regards JP.
In yours of 28th, you tell us that we do not know what the intended track was. Then what about the flight plan lodged with sqn ops showing the waypoint at (or as it happened, because of inaccurate plotting, near) the lighthouse? There are some missing facts in this sorry tale, but the intended track is not one of them. Regards JP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Applause
Some good points made there, particularly with reference to operating with minor unservicabilities. I'm sure that we have all done that and with some justification. However, I return to my first point with a quote...(not from me)
"had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?"
Although I disagree with the author on many many accounts....you have to agree with that one.
"had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?"
Although I disagree with the author on many many accounts....you have to agree with that one.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
A line on a map, is a line on a map, is a line on a map!
At low level (If you ever did much!) at least, it is NEVER intended to be a 'railway track' to which the aircraft is constrained!
The fact that the aircraft may have been 500 metres away from that 'railway line' is (IMHO - and I imagine ANY 'operator' with RELEVANT experience!) utterly insignificant, except for the fact that people like yourself can use it to 'imply' the crew were somehow, already negligent, BECAUSE of that!
Secondly, I personally witnessed the yachtsman Holbrook deliver his evidence at the FAI (under oath!), and to describe him as an unreliable witness is, simply, laughable!
Were you there?
I imagine you aren't aware, that his occupation is 'instrument maker', and I can assure you that, the most important parts of his evidence were extremely well measured!
Now, how about a proper answer, I repeat:
"JP
You are very good at asking questions.
But not so good at answering them!
I asked, what was incompatible with the FACTUAL evidence in my earlier posting?" - of 27th Nov.
Any chance of an answer to a VERY simple question?
Then again, perhaps we should take your comment that: "We do not know what the weather was like at sea level" as answer enough.
Thank you for that useful contribution.
invertron
I am trying to think of an air accident where the aircraft was NOT below \'safety altitude\' when it struck the ground.
Can you help us by being a little more specific, since I don\'t think this point alone, assists an understanding of what CAUSED this to happen!
Thank you.
A line on a map, is a line on a map, is a line on a map!
At low level (If you ever did much!) at least, it is NEVER intended to be a 'railway track' to which the aircraft is constrained!
The fact that the aircraft may have been 500 metres away from that 'railway line' is (IMHO - and I imagine ANY 'operator' with RELEVANT experience!) utterly insignificant, except for the fact that people like yourself can use it to 'imply' the crew were somehow, already negligent, BECAUSE of that!
Secondly, I personally witnessed the yachtsman Holbrook deliver his evidence at the FAI (under oath!), and to describe him as an unreliable witness is, simply, laughable!
Were you there?
I imagine you aren't aware, that his occupation is 'instrument maker', and I can assure you that, the most important parts of his evidence were extremely well measured!
Now, how about a proper answer, I repeat:
"JP
You are very good at asking questions.
But not so good at answering them!
I asked, what was incompatible with the FACTUAL evidence in my earlier posting?" - of 27th Nov.
Any chance of an answer to a VERY simple question?
Then again, perhaps we should take your comment that: "We do not know what the weather was like at sea level" as answer enough.
Thank you for that useful contribution.
invertron
I am trying to think of an air accident where the aircraft was NOT below \'safety altitude\' when it struck the ground.
Can you help us by being a little more specific, since I don\'t think this point alone, assists an understanding of what CAUSED this to happen!
Thank you.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Dec 2004 at 17:51.
Just a numbered other
invertron OK i'll bite, although I am rapidly beginning to think you are just a wind-up merchant.
No? Who knows what the result of blatantly ignoring the pathetic icing clearance afforded the Chinook 2?
JP
Tandem has made it quite clear above. That you don't understand this shows how little you know about Support Helicopter operations. Lines on maps, waypoints etc. are just tools to hang a trip around.
"had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?"
JP
Tandem has made it quite clear above. That you don't understand this shows how little you know about Support Helicopter operations. Lines on maps, waypoints etc. are just tools to hang a trip around.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SALT
The weather is poor.... you are low level...working hard... You have your map out..trying to identify your next waypoint....Jeez this is hard work...whats the nav kit say...? is that right, Im not sure... Do I trust it... Im not sure...this weather is awful...I wonder if the passengers are ok? Where are we? where is that waypoint? There is land somewhere near here....where is it? Im sure we are close. Whats the TANs say? No, thats not right Or is it? Hope the passengers are ok. Wish this weather would clear up.
What do you do?
There is a very good reason we have safety altitudes.
"Remove the negligence"
What do you do?
There is a very good reason we have safety altitudes.
"Remove the negligence"
Invertron,
There are indeed very good reasons why the mil have safety altitudes. There were possibly also very good reasons why the temporary Release to Service in force at the time of the crash limited the aircraft to operating at temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius or more. As Ark points out, with all the other uncertainties associated with the introduction-into-service of the Mk 2, what confidence could the crew have that the FADECs and engines would still work if they flew below plus 4 degrees? Would you deliberately take an aircraft containing your crew, your pax and yourself into such a situation - risking turning it into an 18-ton glider? Jon Tapper and Rick probably wouldn't (we'll never know for certain - one of the points frequently returned to in this thread); they did know the weather combined with the limitations restricted them to a VFR transit without the luxury of an IFR option.
There was a briefing in force at the time (Crown Indemnity had just gone the way of all things...) stating that aircrew would be held individually liable for any occurrence during operations where rules, regulations or limitations had been exceeded (whether or not such exceedance(s) directly contributed to said occurrence). I, too, wish I'd kept a diary - they were "interesting times".
(Did your quote mean to say: "had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they have not hit the ground?")
(and from the above you'll see that No, I don't have to agree that the aircraft should've been at Safety Altitude. That WOULD have been seen as criminally negligent - a deliberate flouting of the limits in the temporary Release to Service.)
There are indeed very good reasons why the mil have safety altitudes. There were possibly also very good reasons why the temporary Release to Service in force at the time of the crash limited the aircraft to operating at temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius or more. As Ark points out, with all the other uncertainties associated with the introduction-into-service of the Mk 2, what confidence could the crew have that the FADECs and engines would still work if they flew below plus 4 degrees? Would you deliberately take an aircraft containing your crew, your pax and yourself into such a situation - risking turning it into an 18-ton glider? Jon Tapper and Rick probably wouldn't (we'll never know for certain - one of the points frequently returned to in this thread); they did know the weather combined with the limitations restricted them to a VFR transit without the luxury of an IFR option.
There was a briefing in force at the time (Crown Indemnity had just gone the way of all things...) stating that aircrew would be held individually liable for any occurrence during operations where rules, regulations or limitations had been exceeded (whether or not such exceedance(s) directly contributed to said occurrence). I, too, wish I'd kept a diary - they were "interesting times".
(Did your quote mean to say: "had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they have not hit the ground?")
(and from the above you'll see that No, I don't have to agree that the aircraft should've been at Safety Altitude. That WOULD have been seen as criminally negligent - a deliberate flouting of the limits in the temporary Release to Service.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
XX
Would you deliberately take an aircraft containing your crew, your pax and yourself into such a situation - risking turning it into an 18-ton glider? Jon Tapper and Rick probably wouldn't (we'll never know for certain - one of the points frequently returned to in this thread); they did know the weather combined with the limitations restricted them to a VFR transit without the luxury of an IFR option.
So why did they "deliberately take an aircraft containing your crew, your pax and yourself into such a situation " ?
The quote wasn't mine but belongs to Sir William Wratten. Thats why it was a quote. If I'd had said it then it would have been a statement.
RAFLOO Good point .... why didnt anyone else think of that
So why did they "deliberately take an aircraft containing your crew, your pax and yourself into such a situation " ?
The quote wasn't mine but belongs to Sir William Wratten. Thats why it was a quote. If I'd had said it then it would have been a statement.
RAFLOO Good point .... why didnt anyone else think of that
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
invertron wrote:
"The weather is poor.... you are low level...working hard... You have your map out..trying to identify your next waypoint....Jeez this is hard work...whats the nav kit say...? is that right, Im not sure... Do I trust it... Im not sure...this weather is awful...I wonder if the passengers are ok? Where are we? where is that waypoint? There is land somewhere near here....where is it? Im sure we are close. Whats the TANs say? No, thats not right Or is it? Hope the passengers are ok. Wish this weather would clear up."
WOW!!!
Ten years and six months (bar 22 hours) of being deeply involved in this, and I didn't REALISE the aircraft even HAD a Cockpit Voice Recorder!
If only I'd KNOWN earlier!
I always thought:
I have an eye witness that saw the aircraft flying in bright sunlight.
Do you have an eye witness that saw it flying in POOR weather?
WOW!!!
"The weather is poor.... you are low level...working hard... You have your map out..trying to identify your next waypoint....Jeez this is hard work...whats the nav kit say...? is that right, Im not sure... Do I trust it... Im not sure...this weather is awful...I wonder if the passengers are ok? Where are we? where is that waypoint? There is land somewhere near here....where is it? Im sure we are close. Whats the TANs say? No, thats not right Or is it? Hope the passengers are ok. Wish this weather would clear up."
WOW!!!
Ten years and six months (bar 22 hours) of being deeply involved in this, and I didn't REALISE the aircraft even HAD a Cockpit Voice Recorder!
If only I'd KNOWN earlier!
I always thought:
I have an eye witness that saw the aircraft flying in bright sunlight.
Do you have an eye witness that saw it flying in POOR weather?
WOW!!!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Dec 2004 at 19:32.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather
Inverton - Good point about the course of action but sadly I think you are being mislead about certain facts.
Tandem - without wanting to defend Invertron, I think you have the wrong end of the baton. There is no mention in Invetrons article about a Chinook or indeed of the location of this fictional scenario. I think its just that - a fictional scenario asking a question of what the reader would do. Its not supposed to be a dig.
Arkroyal - Good point made there. I recall from my days with the RN that they had particular stringent rules with regard to flying over the sea and close to land. I suppose it stems from the fact that Flying over the sea close to land in ****ty weather is twhat the RN do. Can't recall the rules right now and to be honest its irrelevant but there was something to do with Tactical maritime and non tactical maritmime sorties. The RAF have never used those rules.
Tandem - without wanting to defend Invertron, I think you have the wrong end of the baton. There is no mention in Invetrons article about a Chinook or indeed of the location of this fictional scenario. I think its just that - a fictional scenario asking a question of what the reader would do. Its not supposed to be a dig.
Arkroyal - Good point made there. I recall from my days with the RN that they had particular stringent rules with regard to flying over the sea and close to land. I suppose it stems from the fact that Flying over the sea close to land in ****ty weather is twhat the RN do. Can't recall the rules right now and to be honest its irrelevant but there was something to do with Tactical maritime and non tactical maritmime sorties. The RAF have never used those rules.